←back to thread

Top UN legal investigators conclude Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza

(www.middleeasteye.net)
1332 points Qem | 3 comments | 16 Sep 25 08:24 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
therobots927 ◴[16 Sep 25 19:22 UTC] No.45266704[source]▶
I for one will be holding my representatives responsible who continue to vote for the US to enable a genocide. The videos coming out of Gaza have turned me and many others into single issue voters.
replies(16): >>45267088 #>>45267542 #>>45267847 #>>45268465 #>>45268480 #>>45268633 #>>45268878 #>>45269034 #>>45269263 #>>45269527 #>>45269796 #>>45270181 #>>45270992 #>>45274127 #>>45275351 #>>45276704 #
beloch ◴[16 Sep 25 20:29 UTC] No.45267542[source]▶
Flipping the U.S. really is the key to ending this conflict. The U.S. reliably uses its security council veto to nix any meaningful UN response and the U.S. remains, by far, the biggest supplier of arms to the IDF. If the US were to stop veto'ing everything and cut off the IDF's supply of, at least, some types of weapons, the new ground assault would likely end quickly.

Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen. Netanyahu has, to date, handled Trump deftly and Rubio's current presence in Israel seems to be aimed at offering support to the ground offensive, not opposition. I honestly have no idea what kind of backlash it would take to shake U.S. support for this genocide.

replies(7): >>45268014 #>>45268029 #>>45268075 #>>45268495 #>>45268727 #>>45271549 #>>45285177 #
jcranmer ◴[16 Sep 25 21:05 UTC] No.45268029[source]▶
There's definitely a generational gap going in the US. Support for Israel is not popular among the younger generation in the US, and there's a good deal of voters in their 20s and 30s for whom support for Israel a red line in candidates. But older generations tend to be staunchly in favor of Israel, and too much of the gerontocratic political class thinks that pro-Israel uber alles is the key to winning votes.

It is worth noting that Andrew Cuomo, in a desperate last-minute gamble to boost support in the NYC mayoral race, has come out against Israel. Considering that much of the attacks on Mamdani have focused on his support for Palestine (construing him as antisemitic), it's notable that other candidates also seem to think that being anti-Israel is actually the vote winner for moderates right now.

replies(8): >>45268343 #>>45268452 #>>45269585 #>>45269624 #>>45270752 #>>45272165 #>>45274151 #>>45282065 #
sfink ◴[16 Sep 25 21:37 UTC] No.45268452[source]▶
I wouldn't label this as "support for Israel"/"against Israel". One can support Israel without supporting Israel's current approach. Many within Israel are not happy with Netanyahu's methods, and presumably they are not against Israel.

I understand that that's the current shorthand, but it seems inaccurate and unnecessarily polarizing to me.

replies(6): >>45269739 #>>45269810 #>>45271487 #>>45271646 #>>45273039 #>>45277564 #
caycep ◴[16 Sep 25 23:39 UTC] No.45269739[source]▶
This is what puzzles me - ppl keep railing about being pro or anti Israel and it's overly simplistic and also not really accurately describing things. It's more pro/anti Likud or Kahanists, or really at heart a right vs left wing divide. There's still plenty of Labor or more progressive elements of the Israeli public who are against what Netanyahu and his political allies are doing.
replies(5): >>45269879 #>>45271725 #>>45271751 #>>45272110 #>>45272885 #
throw310822 ◴[17 Sep 25 04:37 UTC] No.45271725[source]▶
Israel was literally born out of political scheming to get assigned a portion of someone else's territory for an exclusive ethno-nationalistic state; then out of ethnically cleansing that territory. It was necessary to the project and planned in advanced.

You can be for the existence of a peaceful Israel that has entirely retreated within recognised borders and made amends for its past genocidal behaviour- but it's not what the current Israel is or, sadly, can ever be.

> There's still plenty of Labor or more progressive elements of the Israeli public who are against...

No. Not at all.

replies(3): >>45271917 #>>45272373 #>>45284238 #
klipt[dead post] ◴[17 Sep 25 05:08 UTC] No.45271917[source]▶
[flagged]
throw310822 ◴[17 Sep 25 05:20 UTC] No.45272013[source]▶
> Shouldn't similar preconditions of making amends apply to whether or not we accept the existence of those Arab states?

And what if they should? Do you think it make Israel's genocide look better now?

Stop trying to change the subject or shift the blame, it's a trick and it's pathetic.

replies(2): >>45272215 #>>45273045 #
1. ukblewis ◴[17 Sep 25 05:50 UTC] No.45272215[source]▶
It is called a rhetorical device. It is considering the ends of your argument. If you are British, French, German, American, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. and you support the argument that displacement or control of a people is bad, I agree, but consider what you would want to do and apply the rule fairly. Criticising one country for “taking” land when it was given that land by the same UN you use to claim that it is a genocidal country today… well that really is rich
replies(2): >>45272269 #>>45272361 #
2. DiogenesKynikos ◴[17 Sep 25 05:58 UTC] No.45272269[source]▶
Was it really the "same" UN? In 1947, most of the world was still colonized, and had no UN representation. France, Britain and the US might not have had much of a problem with telling some people in the Third World to give up their homeland, but sentiment in colonized countries would have been very different.

Also recall that it was only a UN recommendation, not a binding resolution.

3. throw310822 ◴[17 Sep 25 06:13 UTC] No.45272361[source]▶
Yes of course it's a rhetorical device, and it's meant to subtly change the subject to prevent engaging with it.

This conversation went like this:

>>>> ppl keep railing about being pro or anti Israel and it's overly simplistic and also not really accurately describing things. It's more pro/anti Likud or Kahanists

To which I replied that Israel is constitutionally born out of a pre-planned colonisation and ethnic cleansing and it's wrong to think that its supremacist ideology only belongs to a part of its political spectrum- it could change but it's unfortunately unrealistic.

>>> Israel was literally born out of political scheming to get assigned a portion of someone else's territory for an exclusive ethno-nationalistic state; then out of ethnically cleansing that territory. It was necessary to the project and planned in advance.

To which the GP replied with something that tries to change the subject on Arab states, at the same time introducing a historical falsehood:

>> The Arab states haven't made amends for ethnically cleansing huge numbers of Jews

Now,

1) the Arab states are not born out of a planned ethnic cleansing of anyone (at least not in the recent past)

2) Many, perhaps most of the Jews that immigrated to Israel did so voluntarily (made Aliyah)

3) By the way, Israel itself even engaged in false flag terrorism to push Jews to emigrate from Arab countries to Israel.

And most importantly, the argument has no bearing with the original subject, which is whether its a specific political side that is determining Israel's course now or the country is constitutionally like that. Arab countries have nothing to do with the subject, they belong to a different conversation.

Hope it helps.