"South Africa, which is functioning as the legal arm of the Hamas terrorist organization [...]"
-- https://twitter.com/LiorHaiat/status/1745427037039280207 (https://archive.md/L7AwX)
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
334 points (88.3% liked)
Memes
47966 readers
1136 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 37 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
I just can’t fathom how monstrous and dumb people are who support what Israel is doing
I've known plenty of "dumb" people who weren't genocidal. It's less an indication of intelligence and more an indication of an evil soul.
They are not dumb. Anyone who supports Israel is a fascist terrorist that should go get Tbag'd on frontlines against Hamas, or if they did not forget Ukraine, go there and get killed by Russian peacemakers.
Can you understand Israel's position without supporting it? I do.
Whats their position? We want your land so we are going to kill you for it?
Wasn’t Israel attacked in October 7th?
Hasn't Israel taken land without permission for decades?
So Israel deserves terrorist attacks because of trespassing?
Well, if people can't get justice, they will take matters into their own hand.
You don't shit in your water supply and wonder why disease runs rampant.
It might not be right, but it's definitely predictable.
Mess with the bull, get the horns. I get it. I had sympathy for Hamas and thought a two state solution would work until October 7th.
Let's remember how we got to the current state of play: orchestrated mass shootings of civilians along with kidnapping, mutilation, and rape.
Lets also remember it's only within the last generation or two that things like this could happen and everyone knows about it. In the recent past, they didn't even have to bother with things like reasons.
However, do you think after 9/11 anyone wanted to hear about a country for Al Qaeda? They wouldn't even let American Muslims build a new Mosque for a while, let alone give statehood for Al Qaeda.
Do you recognise that Palestine is a state?
And if you do, why aren't they allowed to attack an invading country?
And I grew up hearing about car bombings there. Why would you think the one thing that has been driving this conflict for longer than you've been alive isn't relevant?
The two state solution requires Israel to recognise Palestine and deal in good faith, something they have never done.
Hamas is the consequence of decades of this.
Again if Israel wanted a 2 state solution they could have had it in the 1970's. The fact that there are still Israeli "settlers" actively displacing Palestinians kinda speaks to the fact that even though Hamas are terrorists and employing methods that harm everyone, Israel has a disproportionate response and has NEVER even kept their word that was given to the Palestinians.
Are you a Zionist?
I personally would recognize the West Bank as a Palestinian state, I would have said Gaza too until October 7.
I am not a zionist. Not religious at all. If they'd all realize that their religion and faith was a bunch of superstition and nonsense I'm sure they'd get along just fine.
I do believe though that Israel is the ticket to human rights through stability and security in the region, it certainly is not Iran or Saudi Arabia. The world cannot afford another failed state in the middle east.
Okay well that cannot be changed now. What's the way forward? You're saying a two state solution.
Hamas will not agree. Palestinian people might. But most of them support Hamas, especially in Gaza where Hamas has like 90% support, whose goal is to eradicate Israel.
In furtherance of that goal they've launched tens of thousands of rockets at Israel from inside Gaza, a tiny little area not much bigger than a medium sized American city, until October 7th. I have zero sympathy for Hamas.
I have a little sympathy for Gazans who support Hamas out of necessity.
In this war so far Israel has killed 1% of the population of Gaza and 0.004% of Palestinians overall. That's not a genocide.
I think they went too far and don't support their current tact, but I think Israel has every right to bomb the Gazan tunnels out of existence and to capture *or kill anyone giving aid to Hamas.
I want the bombing and death to stop. Hamas won't do that, though. So it continues.
E: or not and
And why do you think that Hamas has the support ot does?
If a government consistently took land from my people the way that it has happened in Palestine, I probably would be radicalised as well.
If Israel wants to stop shit they are going to have to eat crow, and the same goes for Hamas.
Neither side is trustworthy.
When you start talking about deaths with full percentage points of a population you kind of lose the moral high ground. Why do you think they're killing those people? How many Israelis have died due to those rockets?
Hamas are terrorists, but the Israeli gov. is conducting a genocide with "police action" as a shoddy cover.
What is the evidence for a genocide? There are a proportionately 150 times fewer civilian casualties than in the US war in Iraq. 0.004% of all Palestinian people.
I support a two state solution and thought it was possible, maybe naively, until October 7.
I'm not looking for the moral high ground. I'm looking at it from the standpoint that people have to live in organized societies and people need to lead those places.
Certainly Israel has the capability right now to carpet bomb all of Gaza and all of the West Bank into a pile of small rocks.
If it's a genocide, why aren't they?
1 in a 100 people sounds like fucking genocide.
If the Israeli gov. wanted a 2 state solution they could have had it sometime in the 1970's
Okay well that was 50 years ago, and the kind of thinking that got us here in the first place. What's the way forward?
1 in 100 is genocide? Genocide involves the intent to totally eliminate a people.
You're saying that's Israels intent and goal, right?
Why, in your view, are they failing so spectacularly at that?
They have absolute air superiority in the region and could annihilate every structure in Gaza within twenty minutes, I have no doubt.
Why is the daily death toll trending downward with only 1% deceased? Shouldn't Israel be getting more efficient at killing civilians if genocide is their intent?
The prime minister has an axe to grind with Palestine because his own brother was killed in an operation ~50 years ago. He's stated many times that he has no intention of any kind of peace and he's only using a tragedy to take revenge. It's no different than the u.s. going into Afghanistan after 9/11 and then using that as a foothold when they invaded Iraq under dubious circumstances. It's completely indefensible.
Ah - wonderful!
I've not heard a remotely defensible explanation for the ongoing genocidal land grab, but I do wonder what could conceivably justify it.
"They started it." "We are the real victims here." "Antisemitic terrorists"
That's hilarious... and the blue-pills are even more hilarious. Actually, it's quite sad.
When the actual apartheid country is calling you on your shit, you've gone beyond apartheid and into apartheid with power windows, steering, wood trim, the entertainment package, and heated seats.
It's not just that, but this lawyer team is like a super lawyer team, who knows the legaleese regarding apartheid. They are the perfect candidates to represent Palestine in international courts.
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.
I think the argument goes:
- 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.
[removed by mod]
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.
It’s not irrelevant. This isn’t a court, this is meme discussion sub. Are you confused where you are?
Oh I've hit a nerve. That wasn't my intention. I'll leave you to it, mate.
What a weird response.
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.