deleted by creator

Fluffychat

Yep, Misunderstood. Sorry.

You still haven’t answered why you think that is, or what your definition is, or what you think the ICJ’s definition is.

You should watch South Africa’s presentation:

https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3

And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source:

https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uwq4cxuv

I got bored: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/27/1227397107/icj-finds-genocide-case-against-israel-plausible-orders-it-to-stop-violations

That is literally the first hit from google. I know you won’t read it, but you should.

You should also really watch South Africa’s presentation: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3

And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uwq4cxuv

I got bored: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/27/1227397107/icj-finds-genocide-case-against-israel-plausible-orders-it-to-stop-violations

That is literally the first hit from google. I know you won’t read it, but you should.

You should also really watch South Africa’s presentation: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3

And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uwq4cxuv

I got bored. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/27/1227397107/icj-finds-genocide-case-against-israel-plausible-orders-it-to-stop-violations That is literally the first hit from google. I know you won’t read it, but you should.

You should also really watch South Africa’s presentation: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3

And the courts findings yourself, and get your news from a primary source: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1u/k1uwq4cxuv

We do know the conclusion to the prelimenary hearing to determine if Israel is plausibly committing genocide, which is what has happened so far. Pretending that that hasn’t happened is just bad faith arguing from a bigot.

Have fun justifying people starving to death with bellies full of grass caused by a government found by the ICJ to plausibly be committing genocide.

But you are bringing forth accusations, millenia old accusations, and they should be examined.

They have been. You’re ignoring anything that gives an answer you don’t like, and accusing the people who have paid attention of being antisemites, cheapening the word for actual antisemitism.

I think you are refusing to do any research on something you aren’t willing to change your mind about. I think nothing would change your mind, so you didn’t even bother watching any of the three parts of the hearing because you already knew what you would believe.

Your method of doing that is to never state a clear opinion, not engage in any logic, and respond to everything with questions.

I’ll follow suit. What do you think the purpose of that hearing was, and what do you think the conclusion was for the hearing?

But, as per my previous paragraph, I’d bet you didn’t even watch it.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Do your own research. That was literally the point of the court hearing.

It’s why they ordered Israel to preserve evidence.

Seriously, watch all three presentations. It’s worth doing. Unless you don’t want your obvious world view destroyed.

If you don’t want to be `bullied’ (although, I can’t for the life of me understand why you’d use that word for people defending themselves from your accusations of antisemitism due to them pointing out a genocide), then don’t attack people with the bad faith accusation of antisemitism.

You still haven’t answered the question.

Come on, I answered yours. It’s your turn.

What would it take for you to admit that recognizing a genocide isn’t antisemitism?

All of the evidence South Africa presented.

Video evidence of the systemic war crimes.

Written and video evidence of the multiple genocidal statements given by a large numbers of governmental figures, including Bibi himself.

What would you require to actually entertain the idea that just maybe Israel is trying to enact genocide?

You know my definition clearly now. You’ve made me repeat it 4 times now.

Clearly state what would be required for you to stop accusing people correctly pointing out genocide of antisemitism?

Not if the government in question is completely restricting access to food medicine and potable water to a population it considers problematic.

But, you certainly won’t either. You certainly don’t now that the ICJ has found Israel is plausibly committing genocide.

Plausible is what the recent case was about, if you actually read.

It was too determine if South Africa has standing, and if it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide for a full trial. As a result of its finding, it called on Israel to stop killing Palestinian civilians and to preserve evidence for the eventual trial.

Asking me if I will agree with their finding is pointless, as it will be years before the trial is finished.

So, now that you know that the ICJ has found it plausible, will you stop accusing people who claim Israel is committing genocide are antisemitic, or are you willing to admit that claim came solely from nationalism in bad faith?

You literally have no reading comprehension. You pressed me three times, and each time I responded with ‘Any country that deals with a population it considers problematic by completely restricting access to food, medicine, and potable water is committing a genocide’

Each time you ignored that and tried to ‘press’ me again.

It’s almost like you’re looking for an answer you’re not getting.

deleted by creator

I didn’t realize the primary was over.

It’s funny how that and the fact that the Democratic party has already, against it’s own rules, removed all candidates other than Biden from the ballots in 10% of the States never gets brought up.

Instead we get a bunch of people posting in an attempt to shame people into voting for someone who supports genocide because ‘what else are you going to do’

I wish the Democratic party acted like Trump was the existential threat we all recognize him to be.

Due to the way I was raised, I have a tendency to view my self worth as solely deriving from my actions.

It has had some benefits, like running into a burning building once I was out to get a family member out.

But it also has some downsides. It’s hard for me to view my own happiness or even life as having intrinsic value.

It’s especially bad if someone I love could concievably benefit from me not being around anymore.

Years of therapy have really helped though.

Someone has never heard of the French Revolution or the October revolution.

Apparently only right wingers get to work outside of the system. If you’re a good person you work within the system. /s

Peak liberal right here. “The status quo is what we have, no matter how horrible. What are you, some kind of right winger?”

What does that even mean?

Genocide is genocide.

Harm reduction arguments only work to a point. If genocide is still the outcome, then it isn’t really harm reduction.