You know you can be critical of Israel without using emotive terms with known definitions and demeaning those subject to actual genocide
Replies
Yes. The point is though, they have been judged to have likely done already so by the ICj and to 'take action against it'. So no, we're talking about empty emotive slogans.
jun 21, 2025, 3:08 pm • 1 0 • view
Often repeated but simply not true as Joan Donoghue from icj has clarified.
jun 21, 2025, 3:15 pm • 2 0 • view
It is true. They received a warning to act against genocide. Why else would they warned about that? Because they're nowhere near it?
jun 21, 2025, 3:50 pm • 0 0 • view
Okay so first you accuse them of genocide but now they have to act to against it? These are very different things and you seem blinded by your own bias
jun 22, 2025, 12:05 am • 1 0 • view
No, I said I think they have committed it and that the ICJ warned them about it. My view and the ICJ's view. Which is a far cry from just an empty label. Try again Israel shill acting like you're 'just being balanced'.
jun 22, 2025, 1:40 am • 0 0 • view
Rubbish icj categorically did not say they committed it, merely to warn of the possibility and preventing it. A product of SA grandstanding while shipping arms to Russia. Again you can be critical of Israel, highlight war crimes without screaming genocide nonsense.
jun 22, 2025, 1:58 am • 1 0 • view
That's what I said ICJ said. However they have razed Gaza to the ground and starved them and colluded with Trump to 'rebuild' it with a plan of them not returning. So you can make up a name for that if you want.
jun 22, 2025, 2:09 am • 0 0 • view
No you didn't, you tried to claim genocide was true and amnesty did not fabricate the claim. ICJ simply posit potential risk which has nothing to do with your original claim. None of genocide fetish helps Palestinian people
jun 22, 2025, 12:50 pm • 0 0 • view
It is true. They have tried to wipe them out in Gaza and have had to settle for mass displacement. ICJ is tiptoeing around Israel as they all do because everyone is afraid to call Israel genocidal, but she clearly says the risk is there. Using circumlocution.
jun 22, 2025, 12:58 pm • 1 0 • view
Right so it's true because you say so. Gotcha 🤣
jun 22, 2025, 1:00 pm • 0 0 • view
You don’t know what words mean. youtu.be/bq9MB9t7WlI?...
jun 22, 2025, 12:34 pm • 1 0 • view
Tell me then my man what 'a plausible risk to the right to be protected from genocide' means. How that comes to exist and be stated if it is nowhere on the horizon.
jun 22, 2025, 12:45 pm • 0 0 • view
She just explained it very succinctly for you in 1 1/2 minutes. “Plausible” is the rights asserted by the applicant (S. Africa), not the substance of their case.
jun 22, 2025, 12:51 pm • 0 0 • view
No they haven’t. “Plausible” in legality does not mean their ruling towards that conclusion.
jun 22, 2025, 12:31 pm • 0 0 • view