342

South Africa is the Legal Arm of _____. (lemmy.ml)

submitted 9 months ago by rcbrk@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] rcbrk@lemmy.ml 85 points 9 months ago

"South Africa, which is functioning as the legal arm of the Hamas terrorist organization [...]"

-- https://twitter.com/LiorHaiat/status/1745427037039280207 (https://archive.md/L7AwX)

[-] Bassman27@lemmy.world 86 points 9 months ago

Isreal deserve an Olympic gold medal for mental gymnastics

[-] fastandcurious@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago

I just can’t fathom how monstrous and dumb people are who support what Israel is doing

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 9 months ago

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.

[+] JustZ@lemmy.world -28 points 9 months ago

Can you understand Israel's position without supporting it? I do.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 46 points 9 months ago

Whats their position? We want your land so we are going to kill you for it?

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 36 points 9 months ago

That plus “we’re God’s chosen people” so killing civilians is A-OK.

[-] PlasterAnalyst@kbin.social 22 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] SLfgb@feddit.nl 28 points 9 months ago

"They started it." "We are the real victims here." "Antisemitic terrorists"

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.de 1 points 9 months ago

That's hilarious... and the blue-pills are even more hilarious. Actually, it's quite sad.

[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 29 points 9 months ago

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.

[-] taanegl@beehaw.org 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

Israel has gone full Scrappy-Doo.

Never go full Scrappy-Doo.

[+] steakmeout@lemmy.world -13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] steakmeout@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[-] steakmeout@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago

It’s not irrelevant. This isn’t a court, this is meme discussion sub. Are you confused where you are?

[-] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

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.