Itās 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.
Israel is innocent of genocide (of course this is the standpoint of a lawyer defending Israel against accusations of genocide).
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)
South Africa is therefore attempting to make it harder for Israel to pursue Hamas
South Africa is assisting Hamas, indirectly.
I think thatās 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.
Itās 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 Israelās defence. The consensus among impartial academics is hat Israel is guilty of this crime, or is imperceptibly close to it.
Itāll 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 Israelās being guilty.
You misused the word belies, which really sums up the very issue with your argument - at its core is a fundamental misunderstanding of the courts, language and the nature of whatās at play here. South Africa is doing what its financiers want - to destabilise the region and in particular that of the US and its partners . They had the opportunity to arrest Putin for war crimes last year and bent over backwards to avoid doing so while also inviting a delegation of the some of the worst of Hamas to visit the country seeking funding. ZA cares about war crimes when it suits them to grab some distraction from their own political woes.
Iāll 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, itās 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 itās 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 youāve raised a lot of interesting questions, they are separate and distinct from the question āis Israel committing/has Israel recently committed war crimesā, 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.
Hang on, were you misunderstanding my reference to āthe courtā? Had you forgotten that weāre 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.
So weāre planning to tax the rich to fund homebuilding projects like in China or Australia? I could dig it, but can we do that part BEFORE we ban mortgages? Because otherwise weāll just be creating a homeless dystopia like Mao Zedongās.
Failed:
After trying to kill multiple innocent people while gambling with his right hand angel, God drowns all of humanity during a temper tantrum.
You find yourself on a ship filled with one family and two of each animal.
I regret convincing my parents to subscribe to Netflix instead of using Torrent or Emule. Fuck these fucking companies that now cost more than bluerays and broadcast content with crappy quality if you donāt have a platform that knows how much youāre shitting yourself
I find this to be an option with Movies/TV Shows but a struggle with Music. At least once my kids were older and listening to stuff. They were constantly asking for stuff to be downloaded, my mom and wife were asking for stuff, my brother, etc. Had a subsonic server set up and just got tired of actively managing it. Spotify isnāt great but it works and it saves a headache. I just wish there was better options because I donāt like the Spotify app. YouTube Music is even worse, especially since it subscribes to everything on YouTube too so all my subscriptions got jacked up.
Give them a search tool as a web app (for said music server and scraper setup) and allow them to ask it for the music. When theyāre over their limit, have it return a temp unspec error. Dust your hands and walk away proud.
I donāt have access to my music torrent site anymore due to the first one shutting down (W.CD) and then going idle on the other one for years. Donāt feel like re-downloading everything either since I lost all my music in a hard drive crash. Could probably recover it from my Cowon X7 but donāt know where the cable is for that anymore.
if you want DRM-free, bandcamp is the best way, but for āexploringā subscribing to spotify is the best way in terms of quantity, and it doesnāt pay much less than other DRMs even if it has a monopoly, and is not from the USA or China
otherwise if you donāt want to pay, youtube + soundcloud with adblock is the best solution. or if you really have a lot of time you can make your own self-hosted pod on funkwhale: docs.funkwhale.audio/administrator/index.html
I have to find the time to do it, I had seen jellyfin as a solution, but I also have to find something that acts as a server, my raspberry pi 3B+ is not powerful enough for 1080p+ streaming
If you parents have a standard TV stick or Apple TV their devices support a variety of codecs.
This means that you can ādirect streamā content from Plex / Jellyfin with minimal CPU impact.
At 1080p it should at least support ~4 direct streams when it doesnāt have to ātranscodeā.
That said, even if it is weak by todayās standards itās a good platform to learn the setup on. Then you can move to something else more powerful (but still cheap) once you understand it all.
At least thatās how I did it, 3b+ -> Pentium J5040
Rights are something that the society you live in and contribute to, grants you!
There are no inherent human rights to be had! Even being alive is a happening not a right! Youāre born because your parents fucked, there was nothing special about it!
L.E. I see a lot of snowflakes are bothered by what I said, good. Maybe you start thinking once about what you have, instead of whining about what you would like!
Letās not forget that the only reason states exist is to serve those within them. If that state should fail to serve its people sufficiently, itās been common throughout history that theyāve been dismantled by the people.
You are correct about natural rights. They are fought for. Many rights, such as workersā rights, were strongly fought for and founded on blood (pretty much all of them in fact). However, when talking about rights, one remember the original meaning of the word: that which is morally good or honorable. The legal entitlement is preceded by the philosophical definition. In a just society legal rights should reflect moral rights as closely as possible.
Housing is necessary for life, and so depriving an individual of housing when housing is unutilized is equatable to murder, an injustice. This is why the post communicates that housing is a human right.
Corect, but if the state is or isnāt serving those within, is a decision to be taken by the same individuals. Up to now those who are considering this are a small subset of the citizens which agrregate in underground forums and not actively trying to change the society and have a positive impact.
Housing is necessary for life but it was never a right in that society. Also necessary for life are water, clothing, food, medical assistance, etc. None of them are rights of the people within that society. It may not correct but it is what it is.
Iām so glad that I subscribed to netflixs DVD rental service. I would get stuff in the mail, rip the disks with handbrake, and send back. Repeat. Torrents where a no go with a 5gb a month satellite ISP.
lemmy.ml
Newest