• barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Judges. Scholars. Neither operate on the assumption of guilt, but assumption of innocence. And there’s a very fucking good reason to do that, to see what assumption of guilt does to a people simply observe how the Israeli right considers Palestinians: Guilty unless proven otherwise. You can’t fight barbarism by succumbing to it.

    • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      There is zero assumptions of guilt here. Only hitler was as clear as israel about genocide intents. Denying the genocide at this point is like denying the holocust when it occured. Human right reports and idf themselves filming themself comiting crimes show that the intent is also applied on thr ground

      You are simply doing genocide apologia here

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        You are simply doing genocide apologia here

        I have been calling what Israel is doing a genocide like four or five times now. In this very thread. Watch where you’re aiming.

        There is a difference between a prosecutor calling the accused a murderer, and a judge calling the accused a murderer. Can you follow me this far.

        • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          If the presecutor has all the necessary proofs and still refuse to acknowledge the genocide then he is complicit in it and you defending him for that is genocide apologia even if you don’t realize it

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            And the judge, before all evidence, all arguments are in, the prosecutor has been heard, the defence has been heard, the defender has been heard, and everything has been deliberated with other judges? Would you also require of them to call it a genocide the day the prosecutor brings the case to court?

            • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              All what you said was done. The icj despite all the evidences proving it still decided to not say definitely that there is a genocide. With their ruling no country has obligation to do their best to stop israel occupation and agression. Do you want the genocide to be admited a decade after it happened just like with the bostnian genocide declared as such after 12 years?

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                The icj despite all the evidences proving it still decided to not say definitely that there is a genocide.

                Because they do not have the evidence necessary to rule that way. Mostly, yes, because Israel is rather uncooperative, and the ICJ can’t just raid Netanyahu’s office.

                With their ruling no country has obligation to do their best to stop israel occupation and agression.

                All countries have that obligation no matter what the ICJ rules.

                Do you want the genocide to be admited a decade after it happened just like with the bostnian genocide declared as such after 12 years?

                This is not about “admitting”, or “strongly suspecting”, or “preponderance of evidence”, but “beyond reasonable doubt”. Proof should only be declared when it’s actually bullet-proof.

                As said: Otherwise, you leave an attack surface for genocide deniers, they’ll spend the next 1000 years talking about “The antisemitic conspiracy that managed to frame Israel for genocide, here, have a look, they suspended due process to come to that conclusion”. Don’t play into the hands of those assclowns.

                • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  They have all the bullet proof evidences, the hell are you talking about are you a zionist under cover or just stupid?

                  What for you would be a bulltet proof evidence?

                  The icj is simply politically influenced

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    the hell are you talking about are you a zionist under cover or just stupid?

                    How often do I have to say that Israel is committing genocide for people to stop calling me a zionist? It’s getting tiring.

                    What for you would be a bulltet proof evidence?

                    It’s abundantly clear that parts of the Israeli administration, the IDF, are guilty of genocide. Expanding that to the whole state of Israel, proving intent and not just mere incompetence at stopping rogue IDF elements, will probably require access to files and protocols Israel is withholding…

                    The icj is simply politically influenced

                    … and from the activists’ perspective, a political perspective, that withholding is proof of guilt, for a court, it’s more complicated. Before court, there’s stricter requirements: The ICJ cannot follow the the political assessment not because it’s politically influenced, but because it’s not political. Because it can’t make that kind of snap judgement.