doingthestuff,

It was entertaining and it wasn’t overly biased, I’ll give him props for a solid segment. But the first time I saw this shared it was presented as if he had some new enlightened view. It was mostly jokes followed by a recommended resolution that isn’t going to happen. He did what I expected from him.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

I thought he presented a clever solution that could work if the political will were mustered. However, that's assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel.

roastedDeflator,
roastedDeflator avatar

that's assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel

For this statement to be valid it would be required that the concerned parties are equal. In the case of the Israel and Palestine there is a power imbalance. On one hand there is the zionist settler colonial power of Israel that is one of the strongest military forces in the world. One the other hand you have Palestine that is not even recognized as a country by the colonizers and instead of borders the colonizer has raised a wall controlling amongst other things the few entrances.

Calling out Israel for its settler colonial policies is no synonym to vilifying it.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

It's more than "calling them out" when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel with intent to destroy it and genocided and ethnically cleansed Jews from Jerusalem and the West Bank while they were at it, providing justification for the very annexations they claim is a major cause of all this violence and refusal of diplomacy. Or, how Egypt pretends to be concerned for Gazans while not letting them out.

roastedDeflator,
roastedDeflator avatar

It's more than "calling them out" when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel (…)

I was not talking about Arab people, I don’t know where you got that from.

Also before the Arab league invaded Israel, (debatable but not our topic) Israel had to be created as a country. If Israel has the right to exist in West Asia, there are no valid arguments on why Palestine should not have that right as well. Are there?

For the apartheid in South Africa to end, both colonizers and colonized worked together for some sort of solution. Palestine has recognized Israel as part of the Oslo agreement. As long as Israel is not recognizing Palestine, no solution can be implemented, and the Genocide will continue.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

Well, that was what Jon Stewart's plan was, to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel and guarantee safety for both. That's what I was talking about.

Keep using the term genocide incorrectly and it will soon be meaningless. It doesn't mean a lot of civilians died from collateral damage, it means intentional extermination/destruction of a protected group, which is not happening.

roastedDeflator,
roastedDeflator avatar

to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel

Let’s say that this is what he’s saying. I don’t see you mentioning what Israel has to do, so this reading cannot not be a solution cause it leaves out the responsibilities of Israel. What would you put on the top of the list of what Israel has to do? My answer to that would be that Israel has to stop bombing and starving, civilians and children, as well as recognize Palestine.

On Genocide, Israel is doing at least 3 of the 5 required for one to be called as such. And ICJ court said "plausible" so far.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

You're ignoring that first part, without which every military action would qualify under that statute:

with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,

Israel's started intent is to destroy Hamas, which is none of those protected groups.

Plausible does not mean probable. The ICJ didn't order a cease fire, which would be odd if this was in fact a genocide.

roastedDeflator, (edited )
roastedDeflator avatar

I am not ignoring the first part, this is why every military action doesn't qualify under that statute but Israel is “plausibly” doing a Genocide according to ICJ. Personally I don’t need a court decision to make up my mind.

Plausible does not mean probable

see dictionary for details?

Apart from that, you haven't said anything about what are Israel’s responsibilities, and you actively ignored my specific question on the matter. We cannot talk solutions without that so I don’t see any point continuing this attempt to have a conversation.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

Yes, it's clear you've made up your mind, good thing you're not a judge on the IJC misinterpreting the law.

I would say the most important thing Israel has to do is defeat Hamas, which means either destroying them or getting them to surrender, while not breaking the law. They have a responsibility to protect their own people and to honor their treaties. They're letting in 100 humanitarian aid trucks a day into Gaza on average, each one has to be searched, protesters are blocking many of them, and many humanitarian aid organizations have decided it is too dangerous to send trucks, if that is not legally sufficient they need to let in more.

Good day.

circuitfarmer,
@circuitfarmer@lemmy.world avatar

I’m not sure we should expect new or enlightened views on this issue. Everything seems pretty clear from a facts standpoint.

DarkNightoftheSoul,

I can’t believe I used to regularly watch television programming with all the clapping and cheering and whooping and laughing and awwwwwing etc.

This would have been much better with just JS speaking into a camera. Playing up for laughs really takes away some of the punch of his points. METO is an unironically good idea on the face of it.

HarkMahlberg,
HarkMahlberg avatar

The Problem With Jon Stewart had much more biting commentary, and you could see that he and his writers had much more creative control to speak their mind. The Daily Show just doesn't have the same bite, or the same wit, or the same strength of conviction.

DarkGamer,
DarkGamer avatar

The Problem gave me emotional whiplash as the tone constantly went from serious to comedy and back again.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • politics
  • rosin
  • Backrooms
  • GTA5RPClips
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • ngwrru68w68
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • cubers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Leos
  • InstantRegret
  • cisconetworking
  • ethstaker
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • tacticalgear
  • modclub
  • osvaldo12
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines