180
At The Hague, Israel Mounted a Defense Based in an Alternate Reality
(theintercept.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
180 points (89.5% liked)
World News
32283 readers
1489 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Writing such polemic bullshit would be low for an opinion pice, but actually trying to pass this off as journalism devaluates any actual argument they are trying to make.
Why are people so afraid of actually arguing and dicussing facts and always resorting to parroting polarising bullshit that is an insult for journalism?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Because tribalism feels good and thinking can be exhausting...
Wow, your quote is taken entirely out of context. Not even sure what you're point is supposed to be...
That's a direct quote representing the start of a piece of trash that isn't even meeting basic standards of an opinion piece but isn't even one. So what other context is there?
It was preceded by an "Isreal's arguments were weak, South Afirca's are great!!!!"-statement (no details, reasons or anything given, because he's seemingly not a journalist but a cheerleader for his team) and followed by:
So after a bullshit opinion without any agument, then some polemics we now escalate to questioning Isreal's right to defend against a terror attack (guess that happens when you are a Hamas fanboy...).
Is that enough context? Or should we continue up to one of the highlights of this piece of bullshit were all arguments of Israel's lawyers were called "supreme gaslighting"?
Or no, let's read until the end, where after pages and pages of listing Isreal's arguments (at one point calling the "a litany" even...) the author concludes that somewhow "during its presentation before the court, Israel made no arguments..."?
Yeah... I probably missed all context when I described it as "polarising bullshit and an insult to journalism". Oh, wait... No, that's actually a proper description of the whole article, not just that allegedly out-of-context quote.
Still ignoring context. But that's fine, because any article critical is Israel is obviously written in bad faith, huh?
Whatever. If suggest touching grass, but that'd probably be toxic for the grass, and the environment is already messed up enough already...
So then tell me about that context...
"I don't want to hear it, so you most be toxic" isn't context. That's just you being part of the team "Cheerleading for terrorism".
Says the guy cheerleading genocide committed by an authoritarian regime. Why do you even care that I, a complete stranger, an critical of their actions? If you're so confident in "your" conclusions, why would you be threatened by somebody whose life as literally no chance of affecting you?
As much as I want to believe words exist to knock some sense into you, I give up. (Anyone else wanna bet how long he sits and fumes about my refusal to abandon my beliefs to replace them with the party line? Probably spent the entire day between my response and his angrily trying to come up with the perfect rebuttal.)
Go ahead buddy, scream into the wind. You ain't got anything to say worth listening for...
Problem is I didn't. I called out bad journalism. Because bullshit narratives and tribalism make any actual discussion meaningless.
But then your see something that is seemingly criticising "your team" and instantly your delusions get triggered and you hallucinate how I "cheerlead for genocide" when I did actually not say anything other than that this report is polemic low quality bullshit.
Murdering children by the thousands is not self defense.
Bombing hospitals and refugee camps is not self defense.
Shooting shirtless Israeli hostages is not self defense.
Is there a limit for you? Can Israel kill as many people as it wants, bury as many babies in rubble as it wants, and its justified? Is there a line? If there is, I want you to put a hard number on it. Because I don't think there is. I think Israel can expel all of Gaza's citizens into neighboring countries and annex the territory, and you'll still say its justified. I don't think you have a limit.
There is a very clear and limit and number. It's zero. Zero people should be bombed. Zero people would be bombed without a despicable terror attack against Israel (oh, wait... as I just learned in this very thread here this never actually happened and it was a legitimate military attack against military targets somehow...). Zero people would be bombed without Hamas using the population as human shields. Also zero people should have been killed on October 7. Zero rockets should be fired each day at Israel. And zero neighbouring countries or factions should cheer for a newe excuse to attack Israel.
Do you want to know another relevance regarding that number? If you have no ability to argue without questioning the general right of Israel to exist, without questioning any right of self defense, without questionings if Israel was actually attacked, and without falling back to a "oh, the evil Jews are plotting together with corrupt world leaders again..."-narratives, then you have zero valid arguments, because you are a fucking anti-semite.
And then you have zero legitimacy to argue
So, again. Slowly this time because you -probably intentionally, but I'm an optimist by heart- seemed to have missed it: This pile of shit is not journalism. It would be low effort even for an opinion piece, which it isn't. It's full of polemics, lies and can't even manage too stay internally consistent (a "litany" of arguments is at the same time not existing, facts become claims when mentioned by Israel, while claims become facts when it's against them...) or free of anti-semite narratives.
I know... in this world where arguing about people killing each other has become a team sport and everything needs to be black and white it's nearly inconceivable but... Pause for a moment, take a deep breath and try to imagine just for one moment the following -nowadays neartly heretical- thought: Israel's government can be a clownshow of genocidal morons, Hamas is the exact same, and at the same time 70%+ of the people arguing against Israel are still doing so not based on facts but on anti-semitic narratives. And those people need to called out on their bullshit. Because not doing it devaluates the actual discussion. If I can't call out bullshit arguments as bullshit without being attacked for supporting a genocide, how is this or any discussion (or any court case) legitimate, if we all see clearly that it's not about the arguments but a popularity contest between two teams.
Which is what I did. I called this trashy piece of non-journalism out. And for this I now have been called insane, toxic and a supporter of genocide. Because you are brain-washed into believing this is a team sport, so you happily accept anti-semites on your team that is obviously better than the enemy.... Guess what. It's not. You are both wrong.
Sorry to tell you, but team "I accept anti-semitism, lies and bullshit and ignore Hamas, because I'm pro-Palestine" is just as insane as team "Every crticism is anti-semitism, "targeted area bombing" and deportation plans aren't crazy".