It is pure racism. Genocide is a crime people perform, its like murder or rape, it is carried out be a group of people. Since WW2 this charge has been applied against name people, Ireland is trying to make Israel the first nation in history to be collectively guilty of Genocide. Fucking Mics,
A state (rather than a nation) could be found to have breached its international legal obligations by the ICJ e.g. by engaging in a genocide. Well if Ireland's interventions were successful and if the sequence of cases doesn't get disrupted, Israel would be the second state rather than the first...
... I don't think the racial slurs are helpful in any discussion - particularly when you're arguing that other people are being racist.
I am half Irish so I can say what I want. My grandmother maiden name was Daley so its kind of like all the black kids where I live listening to music that say negga over and over again
Your family history doesn't give you a pass when it comes to using racial slurs. Don't call Irish people 'micks' - just an astonishing thing to do when you're accusing other people of being racist.
Once again because I am half Irish I get to say what ever I want. This is a totally universal rule known as the negga rule. Mick is my word, and given things I saw growing up I can get more direct than that.
Yeah you don't. Sorry I make it a policy not overly engage with racists. You can't reason a person into a position they haven't been reasoned into 🤷 Goodbye.
Well firstly the Irish are not a race, their not even a culture. They are essentially British people some in a republic. All effort to establish some kind of unique Celtic identity failed and ultimately became nothing more than membership in the Catholic Church, and how did that work out.
IRA-Palesine ties aref funny beause essentially an Arab people living in a region that had always been part of another empire since the start of Islam, who speak Arabic and practice Sunni Islam, were more able to built an identity opposed to the Irish who really do have a unique buried identity
The 'Palestinians' who cannot pronounce the name of their own identity properly and have to claim is was always Falastine (which we have Roman records to disprove) has been able to make a more unique identity out of imagination than Ireland out of thousand of years of history.
But the great restorer of real identity are Israelis. Reclaiming a land where they had always had a presence but had been kept out of by Empire after Empire despite wanting to settle in Jerusalem. Jews didn't say 'next year in Jerusalem' because they just made it up. They now have Hebrew back
No such finding has ever been made by the ICJ. And the entire claim of Genocide is utterly problematic, a slur seeking a justification. There is nothing in the Gaza war that goes beyond war, the total population of Gazans, counting those who have left, has actually increased.
There is some kind of driving need to connect Israel to Genocide, I have found, and I am sure it will be the same for you, no body who uses this term can justify it in their own words. They just say 'some expert said' The term clearly comes from a need to equate Israel with the Nazis
Israel isn't the only country in the world that faces allegations of genocide at the ICJ.
The ICJ has never ruled that a nation has carried out genocide. Also isn't it the strangest thing in the world that you have to go to the ICJ web site to learn that Gambia has brought a case against Burma, or even a genocide might be happening in Burma, while Gaza was constantly in the news
I can't speak to your media choices 🤷 Most people I know are well aware of the Rohingya genocide.
Saying ISREAL is collective guilty of Genocide, and the popular follow that all Zionist (essentially 90% of Jews) are collectively guilty is trying to use the ICJ to make the kind of statements right wing neo-nazis say about Muslims,
The government of Israel would be found to be in breach of its international legal obligations. The ICJ doesn't make any findings about ethnic groups - that would obviously be a very odd function for an international court.
If south African and Ireland just wanted to make sure Israel followed its responsibilities under international law they don't need to also make a charge of Genocide, which they very clearly have, the Irish going to the point of asking the court to change the law to fit Genocide explicitly.
Israel and Myanmar I think you mean.
I just looked up that Gambia does have a case against Burma yes, I had to go to the ICJ web site to find it, never heard anything about it on the news. And my late wife covered the Rohingya. Yet every day of the Israel case was globally broadcast live, everything was front page news
BBC you one story on Gambia vs Myanmar from 6 years ago www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Gam...
BBC reporting on the South Africa ICJ runs 10 pages long on my last search www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Sou...
I see why most pro-pallys don't want to talk much, every bit of evidence just digs the existence of widespread antisemtism (half the world jews live in Israel so yes antisemitis) on a global level.
Gambia brings a genocide case and it is obscure news barely covered, no live coverage. My late wife covered that genocide and I have thousands of images and videos including drones from it, she struggled to sell any of it. Nobody cared about that Genocide, I didn't even know about the case
BBC seems to have covered one story, while the South African case at the ICJ got constantly live coverage? Why? Are there no South Asians living in Europe? In the UK there are 10 times as many Bangladeshis as Palestine 644,881 vs 60,000. So wha accounts for different BBC reporting.
The charge that South Africa is bringing against Israel collectively is of Genocide. Play what ever word games you want this is a ANC, a party that has destroyed the economy and society of South Africa, using the ICJ to accuse the only Jewish State in the world of collective genocide
Wow this is interesting, Irelands tiny nation does not register much in international politics but I just found out that there was a very contested election last year, the government was very unpopular and was facing a difficult election and suddenly they, just like the ANC, rediscovered Jew baiting
Joyce was right, on June 16 1904 Joyce gives us two radically different ideologies, the Tory headmaster Unionist and the Celtic Nationalist Citizen in the pub. They agree on nothing at all, but what makes them Irish, the both hate Jews and they speak English.
The 'Tory headmaster Unionist' would be British rather than Irish.
Well consider when the book is set all the characters would have been British. They just happened to live in Dublin at that time.
Joyce was a very clever man, I too was raised in an Irish home, though in Chicago as a small mercy, and I too found salvation in among the Italians.