Rustibrooks Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 5 minutes ago, bickster said: The whataboutism in this conversation came from people who think South Africa is acting out of some sort of moral principal based on their past. People pointed out that South Africa weren’t acting out of some superior moral high ground What about Ukraine… Is how I read the conversation. It wasnt people saying that South Africa is a bad actor in this that mention Ukraine. Me saying I’d already answered the question isn’t sarcasm, it’s fact. I then gave you a more detailed answer to aid your understanding. I’m really not sure what words I've put in your mouth Might not been intentional and It may be nothing but it came across that way from the way it seemed when you said ‘I don’t seem to get that Russia hasn’t invaded SA’ and the response after I mentioned with SA assisting with helping D.R. Congo against the M23 rebels. But that’s fine if you didn’t, I probably misread it that way. Apologies. The whataboutism started from when SA’s motive was questioned, because it seemed that people were using that to totally dismiss what SA have done. When if people agree with Israel being in the ICJ, then it shouldn’t matter if it was SA that done it or if it was Columbia. They still deserved to be there no matter the motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 14 Moderator Share Posted January 14 17 minutes ago, Rustibrooks said: it seemed that people were using that to totally dismiss what SA have done. That’s you reading it wrong. No one did that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Rustibrooks said: Might not been intentional and It may be nothing but it came across that way from the way it seemed when you said ‘I don’t seem to get that Russia hasn’t invaded SA’ and the response after I mentioned with SA assisting with helping D.R. Congo against the M23 rebels. But that’s fine if you didn’t, I probably misread it that way. Apologies. The whataboutism started from when SA’s motive was questioned, because it seemed that people were using that to totally dismiss what SA have done. When if people agree with Israel being in the ICJ, then it shouldn’t matter if it was SA that done it or if it was Columbia. They still deserved to be there no matter the motive. Yeah. I mean it sorta depends what your stance would have been if Israel had brought a case against Russia for genocide and illegal occupation of foreign lands, right? I guess it should be assessed purely on merit, given Putin has been doing exactly that. And people should simply point out that Israel is perhaps not the best party to be bringing such a case, but not let that tarnish their views of the case. Hopefully after some consideration that’s the stance I’d take. Not sure that’s the view everyone would take in practice, mind. Edited January 14 by Panto_Villan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Rustibrooks said: Might not been intentional and It may be nothing but it came across that way from the way it seemed when you said ‘I don’t seem to get that Russia hasn’t invaded SA’ and the response after I mentioned with SA assisting with helping D.R. Congo against the M23 rebels. But that’s fine if you didn’t, I probably misread it that way. Apologies. The whataboutism started from when SA’s motive was questioned, because it seemed that people were using that to totally dismiss what SA have done. When if people agree with Israel being in the ICJ, then it shouldn’t matter if it was SA that done it or if it was Columbia. They still deserved to be there no matter the motive. I think you are misreading what people are trying to say. People are questioning SAs motives, rather than case. The case is obviously something that will likely be decided on the merit of the evidence, evidence which I think most people agree don’t show genocide, which is SAs charge. War crimes, sure. Genocide is a horrible step up. The thoughts then quickly jump to why SA has gone out with such a high aim. It doesn’t take an awful lot of mental gymnastics to figure it out when they’re cosying up to the Iran/Russia axis in the way they are. They’re happy to chase a genocide charge against Israel but completely ignore worse transgressions in their own allies. That’s why the case likely won’t end the way SA, Putin and Iran hopes. Edited January 14 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustibrooks Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 7 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Yeah. I mean it sorta depends what your stance would have been if Israel had brought a case against Russia for genocide and illegal occupation of foreign lands, right? I guess it should be assessed purely on merit, given Putin has been doing exactly that. And people should simply point out that Israel is perhaps not the best party to be bringing such a case, but not let that tarnish their views of the case. Hopefully after some consideration that’s the stance I’d take. Not sure that’s the view everyone would take in practice, mind. 7 minutes ago, magnkarl said: I think you are misreading what people are trying to say. People are questioning SAs motives, rather than case. The case is obviously something that will likely be decided on the merit of the evidence, evidence which I think most people agree don’t show genocide, which is SAs charge. War crimes, sure. Genocide is a horrible step up. The thoughts then quickly jump to why SA has gone out with such a high aim. It doesn’t take an awful lot of mental gymnastics to figure it out when they’re cosying up to the Iran/Russia axis in the way they are. They’re happy to chase a genocide charge against Israel but completely ignore worse transgressions in their own allies. That’s why the case likely won’t end the way SA, Putin and Iran hopes. Me personally, i maintain the same energy for all countries that’s why I’m saying what I’m saying. If Israel brought forth a case about Russia and people questioned the motives of that I’d agree that Russia do need to be in The Hague and questioned the same way Israel have been. If this were to happen are Israel hypocrites? Of course they would be in this scenario, however in that instance they would be right in that case. I’m not sure if that’s been missed with everything I’ve said. SA as I said have skeletons in their own closet, as pointed out they have turned a blind eye to the Sudan genocide and rolled out a red carpet for the RSF leader. Which seems to be missed as well because you assumed I ignored that. I’m also aware of South Africa being apart of BRICS. Also SA have allowed some of their Jewish citizens to go to Gaza to fight for the IDF I’m sure which will cause some sort of conflict of interest IF Israel are guilty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustibrooks Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 36 minutes ago, bickster said: That’s you reading it wrong. No one did that As I said it seemed that way due to the questioning of the M.O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 I just saw some stats from the UN yesterday. In 2022, UN passed 15 resolutions calling for condemnation of Israel. At the same time they did the same once against Iran. And once against Syria. And guess how many against North Korea? Once. Meanwhile Hamas and the PA were condemned all of zero times in the UN, even with dragging homosexuals through the streets behind cars, throwing political opposition figures off of buildings, leaders enriching themselves on world aid and enacting Sharia law. 2022 was the year where the morality police beat up and killed Iranian women for dancing, shot at protesters and the one where Iran helped Assad carpet bomb his own territories. Also the year where North Korea sent ballistic missiles into their neighbours' waters. The UN is a joke. It's fast becoming the place where authoritarian regimes can leverage faux charges on democratic nations while being ten times worse themselves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 14 hours ago, magnkarl said: The case is obviously something that will likely be decided on the merit of the evidence, evidence which I think most people agree don’t show genocide, which is SAs charge. Hundreds of thousands who marched on Saturday, around the world, respectfully disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.” When Netanyahu said that was obvious that this about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Jareth said: Hundreds of thousands who marched on Saturday, around the world, respectfully disagree. As discussed further back in this thread, we'll then need a new word for the actual genocides of this world. 20.000 people dead in a conflict in 3 months isn't even remotely close to a genocide, which I think most people in those marches would agree to with some rational thinking. 20.000 people is a lot of horrible death, but it just isn't comparable to for instance the Armenian genocide, Holodomor, Khmer Rouge, or for that matter what's gone on in Syria in the last decade, or the fate of the Jezidi when Isis took Mt. Sinjar. A lot of big words are used about the Palestinian issue by the Palestinian cause, genocide just doesn't fit the bill. Israel can't both be this grand master at killing Palestinians and then only managing to kill 20.000 people (including Hamas operatives) out of a population of 4 million. War crimes and crimes against humanity is the legal term that should be applied. It just makes the argument devoid of history if the term genocide should be applied because the Palestinian cause is popular, while a lot of conflicts that have much worse both death and injure rates get called 'war' or 'conflict'. Edited January 15 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, magnkarl said: As discussed further back in this thread, we'll then need a new word for the actual genocides of this world. 20.000 people dead in a conflict in 3 months isn't even remotely close to a genocide, which I think most people in those marches would agree to with some rational thinking. 20.000 people is a lot of horrible death, but it just isn't comparable to for instance the Armenian genocide, Holodomor, Khmer Rouge, or for that matter what's gone on in Syria in the last decade, or the fate of the Jezidi when Isis took Mt. Sinjar. A lot of big words are used about the Palestinian issue by the Palestinian cause, genocide just doesn't fit the bill. Israel can't both be this grand master at killing Palestinians and then only managing to kill 20.000 people (including Hamas operatives) out of a population of 4 million. War crimes and crimes against humanity is the legal term that should be applied. It just makes the argument devoid of history if the term genocide should be applied because the Palestinian cause is popular, while a lot of conflicts that have much worse both death and injure rates get called 'war' or 'conflict'. Let's say there's no resistance from the US when it comes to the future of Gaza, or the West Bank, I mean you'd miss it if you blinked but they have a position. What do you believe Israel would do next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 30 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.” When Netanyahu said that was obvious that this about. Benny is mad for sure, but what is it that you think he's saying? Having been sent to Talmud Torah most Saturdays for the better part of my childhood to study the Torah (god I hated it!), Jews use Amalek to describe many situations, one of the most important ones being that one shouldn't forget the victims of Amalek, a nation that attacked the Jews as they evacuated Egypt. It can mean many things, vengeance, remembrance, punishment of the perpetrators of violence against the Jews and so forth. It's an important story which is often brought up when it comes to the many injustices the Jewish people have experienced for over 3000 years. I'm very interested in your idea of what it is you think he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 1 minute ago, Jareth said: Let's say there's no resistance from the US when it comes to the future of Gaza, or the West Bank, I mean you'd miss it if you blinked but they have a position. What do you believe Israel would do next? Ah, so it's a genocide because you think something will happen? Being such a military superpower Israel sure is making a very bad job of their genocide. Edited January 15 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, magnkarl said: Ah, so it's a genocide because you think something will happen? Genocidal intent is what has been alleged. From what you know of the situation, of Israel, or this conflict - if left unchecked, what do Israel do next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Jareth said: Genocidal intent is what has been alleged. From what you know of the situation, of Israel, or this conflict - if left unchecked, what do Israel do next? I don't like to work on hypotheticals, I think that question is much more up to what Saudi Arabia does with the Abraham Accords moving forward, and what Iran does now that they've got 3 of their proxies being under serious threat. This war isn't so much about Palestine as the Pro-Palestinian cause thinks, it's about Iran's death match with Israel - with this latest war and repression being started, planned and executed by Iran. Israel is never going to be left unchecked, they're part of a wider Western alliance which will keep them at least within normal conflict death rates\losses. They are fully dependent on Western military aid. What do you think makes this a genocide, when you know the actual examples of genocides? In my mind, bombing one of the most populated areas on the planet with 2.4 million inhabitants (which is horrible in itself mind) and 'only' (and I say that not with the intent of belittling the deaths of 20.000 people) killing 20.000 people is an indication that it isn't a genocide. Hamas operates out of this area purposefully, uses people as human shields and do all manner of horrible things to their local population to increase the death rates, but the death and injured rates are still not at what other comparable conflicts had after 3 months of fighting. To someone who's been to the military in the 70's that to me indicates at least some level of precision, early warning and an attempt (in many cases a bad attempt) at getting civilians out. Edited January 15 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, magnkarl said: I don't like to work on hypotheticals Hundreds of thousands who marched on Saturday, around the world, respectfully disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, Jareth said: Hundreds of thousands who marched on Saturday, around the world, respectfully disagree. What is it that they disagree with? You're not answering why you think this is a genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 15 VT Supporter Share Posted January 15 The court is seeking to prevent genocide, hence it has to act prior to it actually happening, and thus cases like this are brought to it on the basis of threats of genocide or evidence of genocidal intent. But regardless, assuming Israel did lose the court case it would only cause a temporary embarrassment as the US wouldn't allow any judgement to be carried out. So it's a farce. Israel can sit very smug on its throne of dead kids. It's untouchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 3 minutes ago, magnkarl said: What is it that they disagree with? You're not answering why you think this is a genocide. The targeting of population areas is obvious enough. Israel telling the people of Gaza it's safe to go somewhere, then bombing it, makes their intent quite clear. Genocide isn't only genocide when it's been completed. Keep in mind it's been a few months, Israel are only really getting started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 6 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said: The targeting of population areas is obvious enough. Israel telling the people of Gaza it's safe to go somewhere, then bombing it, makes their intent quite clear. Genocide isn't only genocide when it's been completed. Keep in mind it's been a few months, Israel are only really getting started. So targeting population areas is genocide? To play devil's advocate, name me a war where population areas aren't targeted, please. Is Israel only getting started? Where do you get that from? Even when I turned on Pro-Palestinian Al Jazeera today they reported that the bombing has decreased massively over the last month as Israel has withdrawn many of its conscripts and have shifted their attention to Lebanon and Yemen. I'd love nothing more than Netanyahu being sent to the Hague, but on the surface of it I don't see the 'gotcha' evidence that is being hyped up by the people who wants Israel to be punished here. Netanyahu quoting a Torah story is supposed to show genocidal intent, when it has many meanings, and bombing areas that other nations also bomb routinely in their own wars is supposedly what will bring a sentence here? It won't stick. Edited January 15 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts