• kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    313·
    10 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·
      10 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.

  • steakmeout@lemmy.worldEnglish
    517·
    10 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·
      10 months ago

      I think the argument goes:

      1. Israel is innocent of genocide (of course this is the standpoint of a lawyer defending Israel against accusations of genocide).
      2. 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)
      3. South Africa is therefore attempting to make it harder for Israel to pursue Hamas
      4. 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.

        • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
          5·
          10 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.worldEnglish
            15·
            10 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·
              10 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.