webdiplomacy.net

Howdy guys, some years ago I was fan of this game (I'd still play it, if there were more live games, but I just won't play games that last ages anymore), and I was also fan of getting involved in some discussions on this forum, but I had not enter last years because I came to knew your arguments on most topics, at least those that were somewhat relevant for me.

But here you see me again, because I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that no one is discussing the arguments South Africa has presented in the ICJ against Israel. I've read them and I'm horrified (I know Hamas has made horrible things too, but for me at least, the level of horror just does not compare) I wonder if you have anything worth to say about it.

Oh, and I forgot to mention why I titled the thread 'your country is complicit', because I know most people here are from US or UK

The „crime of crimes“, allegations of genocide should never be made lightly. We oppose any attempts to politicize the ICJ.

- A joint statement issued by the Austrian Chancellor and Czech Prime Minister

You can criticise the Israeli army for acting too harshly in the Gaza strip, but that is not genocide

- Germany's Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck

To accuse a country that has suffered a terrorist attack of genocide is obviously nonsense," Szijjártó said. "We believe that it is in the interest of the whole world that the current anti-terrorist operations are successfully completed in order to prevent such a brutal terrorist attack from happening anywhere in the world ever again

- Foreign minister Péter Szijjártó of Hungary


I also have little interest in South Africa playing games on the political stage

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 14, 2024 11:28 am

I also have little interest in South Africa playing games on the political stage

Can you explain how something becomes "political", I think the way this phrase is often used is to discredit the actor for doing an inherently political thing.

So I am curious how you think that politics should be kept out of international system we use to determine what is a crime (Where political forces write the rules which determine what crimes are and are not some objective independent force passed down from above).

BBC wrote: President Geingob said Germany could not "morally express commitment to the United Nations Convention against genocide, including atonement for the genocide in Namibia" and at the same time support Israel.

"The German Government is yet to fully atone for the genocide it committed on Namibian soil" he added.

I can, but I really don't see how it's relevant. My criticism was of South Africa playing games, not a general condemnation of politics. The game in this case being the use of the Gaza war to win favour at home and with various other nations.

According to you, what are the 'games' played by South Africa? Are you aware that the country was under the Apartheid segregation system through 46 years? If South Africa says there's an Apartheid in Palestine, maybe, just maybe, they are into something?

For your cites, hope you're not trying to use authority fallacy here.

The „crime of crimes“, allegations of genocide should never be made lightly.

I could not agree more. Does it mean that no one can accuse anyone of genocide? And... what about the arguments and evidence presented?

To accuse a country that has suffered a terrorist attack of genocide is obviously nonsense

Also, I'm starting to wonder how light are the acusations of terrorism against hamas, but for the sake of this discussion I'll just go with the supposition that hamas is indeed a terrorist organization. So, it's totally imposible that you have a terrorist organization here and genocidal state there, right? You make it look like terrorism is worse than genocide.

Regarding Germany's declaraiont I'll limit myself here to cite yesterday's Namibia's statement (only the first paragraphs here):

Namibia rejects Germany’s Support of the Genocidal Intent of the Racist Israeli State against Innocent Civilians in Gaza

On Namibian soil, #Germany committed the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904-1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most inhumane and brutal conditions. The German Government is yet to fully atone for the genocide it committed on Namibian soil. Therefore, in light of Germany’s inability to draw lessons from its horrific history, President
@hagegeingob
expresses deep concern with the shocking decision communicated by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany yesterday, 12 January 2024, in which it rejected the morally upright indictment brought forward by South Africa before the #InternationalCourtofJustice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in #Gaza.

Sorry, I just saw your last response about South Africa game. They probably want indeed favour from some publics (if you ask me, well they'll deserve it because it was the first country that has shown some humanity lately, in spite of very possibly losing the favour of big powers as US, UK and some other powerful european countries).

But I'm not interested on that either, but on how they have set up their case, the arguments and evidence they have presented

principians wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 14, 2024 1:10 pm

Also, I'm starting to wonder how light are the acusations of terrorism against hamas, but for the sake of this discussion I'll just go with the supposition that hamas is indeed a terrorist organization

I find this astounding, but for the sake of the discussion I will allow you to explain the comment in the hope that it doesn't mean what it initially appears to mean.

It just means what it says: "I'll go with the supposition that hamas is indeed a terrorist organization. Also, I opened this thread saying that I know Hamas has done horrible things. Also I hope you'r not here trying to defend genocide

And you just said you are "starting to wonder how light are the accusations of terrorism against hamas". Now I'll ask again, what exactly do you mean by that?

you've not answer my questions either. But ok,when I say 'light' I don't mean 'incorrect', I just wonder about how the process of the accusations have legally proceeded.

Before we continue this, let's define what we are talking about.

Seeing as principians made the initial post, I ask principians:

What is your definition of "Genocide"?
What is your definition of "Terrorism"?
What is your definition of "Complicit"?

principians wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:26 pm

you've not answer my questions either. But ok,when I say 'light' I don't mean 'incorrect', I just wonder about how the process of the accusations have legally proceeded.

So if you're saying that you think that it was organised mass murder and extreme violence and rape aimed at both military and civilian targets, what did you mean by "light"?

ok, hamas was labeled 'terrorist' much before October 7, you are aware that the conflict did not start that date, right?

principians wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:47 pm

ok, hamas was labeled 'terrorist' much before October 7, you are aware that the conflict did not start that date, right?

Yes, there was a massive amount of evidence that they were a terrorist group before the recent abhorrent terrorist acts. I'm not sure how this is relevant to your use of the word light.

Look, either explain what you mean by your comment in plain English or I am done with this. I have no interest in trying to guess what you're on about

CaptainFritz28 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 14, 2024 4:30 pm

Before we continue this, let's define what we are talking about.

Seeing as principians made the initial post, I ask principians:

What is your definition of "Genocide"?
What is your definition of "Terrorism"?
What is your definition of "Complicit"?

Do we really want to let him define these concepts so he can say that he was right all along?

What is your definition of "Genocide"?

I'll go with ICJ definition:

genocide is a crime that can take place both in time of war as well as in time of peace. The definition contained in Article II of the Convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.

What is your definition of "Terrorism"?

An awful crime that intends to terrify civils to influence on political situations (mainly aiming civil lives). Let me repeat myself: I KNOW HAMAS HAS DONE HORRIBLE THINGS. This is not even the discussion I'm interested in.

Before answering the third questions I'd like you to answer at least this:
Do you consider terrorism is worse than genocide?

Do we really want to let him define these concepts so he can say that he was right all along?

Right, that's why for the point I'm interested in I go with ICJ definition :)

Yes, there was a massive amount of evidence that they were a terrorist group before the recent abhorrent terrorist acts. I'm not sure how this is relevant to your use of the word light.

I did not even express any certainty when I used it, I'm not sure how this is so relevant for you when I'm not even discussing terrorism here. I've expressed that I'll go with hamas being terrorist, that's not the point of this thread. Do as you please.

And if you want to know more about why my uncertainty about the lightness (not the correctness) of the 'terrorism' labeling I'll give you this:

I think mexican cartels are terrorism, I could provide evidence about that, however they have not been labeled as that oficially by the US. You know why? Because that would make the mexican - US relations very akward. In the case of hamas, however, that seems to justify genocide so nicely