S Africa Makes Case: Israel Committing Genocide

[Debater Slayer]

What you are saying is that the ICJ can only make the situation worse, since to you it cannot convict properly nor acquit properly. You won't regard its results as just. It doesn't change that only Israel, out of all the countries with much worse records, is accused.

I'm not saying that I necessarily won't regard its results as just; I'm saying that its rulings are prone to being biased and politicized, so it wouldn't be the ultimate arbiter of the facts regarding this issue.

Multiple countries have been ruled against by the ICJ in high-profile cases over the years, but in this specific case, South Africa chose to litigate against Israel rather than multiple countries. I don't see this as a unique or strange situation considering that the alternatives—either litigating against all countries that South Africa finds guilty of abuse or not litigating against any country at all—don't seem to me realistic to expect of any country.

Speaking to that specific example I'm not sure that I'm getting your point: I'd be happy if the USA were charged in such a court and convicted and barred by international law from entering into further confrontations. I know that there would be a lot of pain here as a result, but it would be better in the long run. We could shrink our military, pull back. We might escape Rome's ancient troubles (of soldiers and generals eventually replacing the government). If Egypt were committed to provide soldiers around the world for unknown future engagements over the next century would you want to get out of those commitments? I think you would, too.

I think global military commitments should be weighed on their own merits, not through a blanket rule. For example, I think it makes perfect sense for small and militarily weak countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to seek protection from potential Russian aggression by joining NATO, in which case a defensive alliance between them and the US makes sense. On the other hand, I don't think it's justifiable for any of them to aid the US in unnecessarily invading another country, like some allies of the US did against Afghanistan and Iraq.

My point was that South Africa, or any other country, can't realistically be expected to simultaneously put forth charges against multiple countries in the ICJ, so I don't see its focusing of its current case on one country (Israel) as an anomaly or something that should count against the case, as I believe the case should also be evaluated on its own merits.

Putting that aside I will try to understand what you mean. I did not know that only one country could be charged at a time, but I see it as problematic if, as you say, the ICJ favors the West. Under that condition the ICJ gains prestige if it convicts, since Israel represents the West. I don't like all of these wheels within wheels.

I don't know whether only one country could be charged at a time either, but even if more could be, I think geopolitical and economic concerns could prevent a country from charging multiple others at the same time.

There are historical examples that lead me to believe that the ICJ could have a Western bias, but whether this applies to the current judges is a different question. Either way, though, the ICJ is largely toothless because it also has no power to enforce its decisions.

I am sorry for not knowing the history to which you refer in South Africa or in what way the USA, relative to other nations, did not stand against apartheid in South Africa. Were we the last to stand against it? I don't know the history, but I'm hastily looking around on the internet. We imposed some kind of sanctions on South Africa's apartheid government in 1986. Reagan (considered now to be very corrupt relative to other presidents) was thought to be a very good man while he was in office, and he didn't withdraw his embassy and didn't end our trade with South Africa. Keep in mind that USA had its own segregation right up until 1964, so even our action in 1986 was somewhat ironic and probably felt (though I wouldn't be alive for ten years) hypocritical. Only 22 years had passed.

@Samael_Khan answered this in post #68, and he's a lot more familiar with South African history than I am. The only thing I want to add to that is that if South Africa relied on support from Thatcher and Reagan to end apartheid, that system would have probably lasted for even longer than it did

 

[Revoltingest]

Brazil's Lula weighs in...

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-02-18/israel-incensed-after-brazils-lula-likens-gaza-war-to-holocaust

Excerpted...
JERUSALEM (Reuters) -Israel accused Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of trivialising the Holocaust and causing offence to the Jewish people on Sunday after he likened the Israeli war against Hamas militants in Gaza to the Nazi genocide during World War Two.
"What is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people has no parallel in other historical moments. In fact, it did exist when Hitler decided to kill the Jews," Lula told reporters during the 37th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa.
The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem said it would summon the Brazilian ambassador for a reprimand over the remarks, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as "disgraceful and grave".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Brazil's Lula weighs in...

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2024-02-18/israel-incensed-after-brazils-lula-likens-gaza-war-to-holocaust

Excerpted...
JERUSALEM (Reuters) -Israel accused Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of trivialising the Holocaust and causing offence to the Jewish people on Sunday after he likened the Israeli war against Hamas militants in Gaza to the Nazi genocide during World War Two.
"What is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people has no parallel in other historical moments. In fact, it did exist when Hitler decided to kill the Jews," Lula told reporters during the 37th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa.
The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem said it would summon the Brazilian ambassador for a reprimand over the remarks, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as "disgraceful and grave".

Yeah, what the IDF has done makes the Oct 6th attack by Hamas definitely the lesser of two evils. IDF will soon reach 30,000 Gazans killed. That's nearing 30 times what Hamas killed. That isn't justice or justifiable, it isn't self defense or necessary, it is wanton destruction, a writ of summary mass execution, it is an extermination.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, what the IDF has done makes the Oct 6th attack by Hamas definitely the lesser of two evils. IDF will soon reach 30,000 Gazans killed. That's nearing 30 times what Hamas killed. That isn't justice or justifiable, it isn't self defense or necessary, it is wanton destruction, a writ of summary mass execution, it is an extermination.

All appearance point to Israel's plan to eradicate tens
of thousands of Palestinians, maim many more, make
Gaza unlivable for them, eliminate their economy,
& send the survivors elsewhere....Africa being Israel's
current stated goal.

 

[libre]

Yeah, what the IDF has done makes the Oct 6th attack by Hamas definitely the lesser of two evils.

Are you under the impression that Hamas and the other groups that participated in breaking out of Gaza would've stopped had they not been fought off?

Really not interested in saying anything that is defensive of the IDF, but I don't think that lesser evilism makes any sense here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you under the impression that Hamas and the other groups that participated in breaking out of Gaza would've stopped had they not been fought off?

Killing 30,000 innocent people isn't fighting off Hamas.

Really not interested in saying anything that is defensive of the IDF, but I don't think that lesser evilism makes any sense here.

It makes sense when you don't accept killing innocent people as necessary. It makes sense to most of the world. It should make sense to Americans who got to see the same murderous brutality fail to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan even after two decades of slaughter and garnering hatred, resentment, contempt and mistrust from the locals and others abroad.

 

[libre]

Killing 30,000 innocent people isn't fighting off Hamas.

I wouldn't suggest that Israel's current policy is justified. I do however not support framing terrorist actions targeting innocent people as 'lesser evilism'. Lesser evilism just doesn't make sense here, it's not an election. I'm starting to doubt whether calling it a war at this point is even accurate.

The point I am making is that Israel stopped what was happening on October 7th.
Do you think that if Israel had not responded, and had done nothing, that Hamas would not have continued to kill at the same rate they were?

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't suggest that Israel's current policy is justified. I do however not support framing terrorist actions targeting innocent people as 'lesser evilism'.

I see that "lesser evil" can mean 2 things.....
- Making a choice between 2 undesirable alternatives.
- Comparing 2 terrible actions that both compete for focus.

The 2nd applies to Israel's genocide of Palestinians
& Hamas's Oct 7 attack. The 1st does not.

 

[Sargonski]

Are you under the impression that Hamas and the other groups that participated in breaking out of Gaza would've stopped had they not been fought off?

Really not interested in saying anything that is defensive of the IDF, but I don't think that lesser evilism makes any sense here.

Lesser evilism indeed makes sense -- in many respects -- not so much in others .. Clearly the Occupier is the greater evil .. right from the get go .. the occupied the right to self defense. Right ? is this not why we support the Brave Ukrainians fighting for Freedom against the Evil Russians .. Right ?

Now in a conversation of war crimes .. crimes against humanity .. Ethnic Cleansing .. there is again most definitely a greater and lesser evil..
that we have two sides engaging in the Evil of Collecive Punishment .. Indeed there is a lesser of the two evils .. one a far greater excess than the other .. and far less just .. While we do not condone the animal in the cage .. continuously persecuted and abused by one outside the cage.. killing that one .. The lesser of th etwo not mattering in that respect .. that it was deserved .. matters .. the collective guilt of one side .. much greater than the other ..

That one is the oppressive Occupier over an Apartheid State .. now gone full Nazi .. the lesser of two evils matters.

Killing 30,000 innocent people isn't fighting off Hamas.

It makes sense when you don't accept killing innocent people as necessary. It makes sense to most of the world. It should make sense to Americans who got to see the same murderous brutality fail to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan even after two decades of slaughter and garnering hatred, resentment, contempt and mistrust from the locals and others abroad.

Collective punishment .. Killing children housed in an open air concentration camp .. with nowhere to run .. for the crimes of quazi political leadership and militants - is a war crime .. full stop .. Crime against Humanity ..bombing indiscriminately the people in this Warsaw Ghetto .. then systematically destroying all the hospitals . even targeting ambulances coming to the scene after a building full of civilians is leveled .. targeting any journalists .. and the families of these Journalists ..

This is over the top what the Bibi Zionists and Extremist nutters are doing .. Full on Biblical Ethnic Cleansing .. Cleansing the land of the Amalek says Bibi .. and yup .. he the greater of the two evils .. by a long long shot .. Not playing by the agreed upon rules by which US civilized nations are supposed to play .. and not giving a carp about it .. giving the world the middle finger .. .FU -- we gonna do what we want ... and USA gonna support us so you can't do squat .. the tail wags the Dog .. ands the Dog Barks .. go figure .. fancy that

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Lesser evilism just doesn't make sense here, it's not an election. I'm starting to doubt whether calling it a war at this point is even accurate.

Elections aren't the only place it applies. Like WWII. Everyone involved had bloody hands. But Churchill and Roosevelt, for the wrongs they did they are widely and easily the lesser of the evils who fought that war.

 

[libre]

. Clearly the Occupier is the greater evil .. right from the get go .. the occupied the right to self defense. Right ?

Do you think that killing civilians in their homes - civilians that were not collaborators in any provable sense - to be self defence?

oppressive Occupier over an Apartheid State .. now gone full Nazi .

You and I have very different ideas of what 'full Nazi' looks like.

 

[Sargonski]

Do you think that killing civilians in their homes - civilians that were not collaborators in any provable sense - to be self defence?

You and I have very different ideas of what 'full Nazi' looks like.

LOL No but you do -- think that killing civilians in their homes is self defence .. civilians that were not collaborators in any provable sense. Collective punishment is called a war crime friend .. "clearly you have a different idea."

Now that is priceless projection . and no doubt we have different ideas of what "Full Nazi" looks like .. Extermination of 10,000 children trapped in an open air concentration camp in warsaw is "Full Nazi" .. guess in your world it is not what would it take 10,001 children ? what was your idea friend

 

[libre]

LOL No but you do

You seem to have made some false assumptions about my stance on Israel's current policy.

and no doubt we have different ideas of what "Full Nazi" looks like ..

Indeed.

 

[libre]

I see that "lesser evil" can mean 2 things.....
- Making a choice between 2 undesirable alternatives.
- Comparing 2 terrible actions that both compete for focus.

That is a fair point.
I would not object to the latter argument, however it appears to me that Shadow Wolf is arguing the former, given her comparisons to Roosevelt and Churchill.

Happy to be corrected if I am mistaken, @Shadow Wolf.

 

[Sargonski]

You seem to have made some false assumptions about my stance on Israel's current policy.

Indeed.

What false assumptions were made ? .. and how does that relate to your false assumptions about my stance on collective punishment ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is a fair point.
I would not object to the latter argument, however it appears to me that Shadow Wolf is arguing the former, given her comparisons to Roosevelt and Churchill.

Happy to be corrected if I am mistaken, @Shadow Wolf.

I didn't compare those two against eachother but against everybody else like Stalin, Hitler and other Ally and Axis leaders. Roosevelt and Churchill did some very bad things during then. But the Soviets, Germans and Japanese were especially brutal. Especially Germam vs Soviet (really Socialist vs Fascist in many places on many levels) and Japanese against Chinese.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you think that if Israel had not responded, and had done nothing, that Hamas would not have continued to kill at the same rate they were?

This one, by the way, I'm not answering because I never said, suggested or implied that. My statements have never even came close to such a preposterous idea.

 

[Revoltingest]

This one, by the way, I'm not answering because I never said, suggested or implied that. My statements have never even came close to such a preposterous idea.

Why does it always devolve to a choice of only
2 extremes....either massacre Palestinians.
Or do nothing in self defense.

Ya know, if Israel had any sense, it would loosen
up its highly restrictive gun control law. Most
people there aren't legally allowed self defense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why does it always devolve to a choice of only
2 extremes....either massacre Palestinians.
Or do nothing in self defense.

Ya know, if Israel had any sense, it would loosen
up its highly restrictive gun control law. Most
people there aren't legally allowed self defense.

If they were reasonable they wouldn't have stolen land based on religious nationalism in the first place or continually encroached upon the land the UN didn't take from the Palestinians. They wouldn't have made Gaza into a repressive hellhole. They wouldn't intentionally economically repress and hinder. They'd actually be targetting and eliminating Hamas rather than putting all Gazans in the way to the sword. That one is especially just stupid as we've seen time and time again such extreme violence primes people for extremism, in this case doing Hamas recruitment.

 

[libre]

Why does it always devolve to a choice of only
2 extremes....either massacre Palestinians.
Or do nothing in self defense.

I don't support the current policy of Israel.
I do think it is unwise to suggest that Hamas is a lesser evil here. Their offensive was the indiscriminate killing of mostly civilians.

To say they are a lesser evil because of death counts is to mistake the fact that they have poor military capabilities as some sort of virtue that they do not have. If the Oct 6th assailants had not been stopped, they would've killed way more. That fact is independent of any analysis or evaluation of Israel's response.