Am I the only one that feels like this is a fairly straightforward moral issue, and one I would expect to -- at the very least -- be allowed to express myself about. I also think the resolution of the moral issue is fairly straightforward, but I accept that there will be multiple opinions there. Still, people supporting Israel have not been fired, and supporting a genocide is -- in my mind -- a much more radical political position than objecting to one.
It's not complicated.
Protests don’t work if they can disperse of you that easily or cordon you off to a small block. If only a few of you get arrested and the rest of you disperse, it won’t work. If one of you get arrested, all of you should try to get arrested since they can’t fill up the jails with everyone.
If you are not going to go all the way then don’t bother with this shit. I don’t agree with the Jan 6 riots, but they mostly followed through lol. That’s pretty much how you have to do it, and if you have a really good cause (e.g something not retarded like defending trump), you’d have a lot of support.
College protesters need to straight up super glue themselves to the campus honestly if they really want to do this. Yes, actually glue on bare skin to surface. Then America can watch as the fire departments remove students one by one off the walls of the campus live lol.
Be sticky, protesters.
But in any case and far more importantly protests have goals they want to achieve and being a pain in the ass is absolutely a valid tactic. Protest movements have rarely accomplished their aims by acting fully within the social preferences of their opponents.
Keep in mind that these junk suits (in both directions), have negative impacts on other people trying to access the justice system for legitimate reasons.
Principled restraint from an effective technique has never deterred an opponent from using it themselves.
Like look at the last decade of the democrats and their deference to decorum and what that has accomplished.
>[A]ll of the workers who were fired were “personally and definitively involved in disruptive activity inside our buildings."
I myself feel that calling this a genocide is warranted, it fits the UN definition, Israels actions have been consistent with this definition for several decades. They do not allow Palestinians to return to their land, they do not give them peace to live on their inidgenous land, the ones that have a right to live on Israeli land have second rate citizenships without political rights, the ones living in the Palestinian territories have no legal rights whatsoever. They are being bombed and imprisoned, and starved to death. Israel has been destroying sources of fresh water, schools, hospitals, universities. Israel's current government has called them animals, called for their total annihilation, and is killing civilians to "suspected Hamas operatives" at a collateral rate of like 10 to 1 according to their own records. (I don't remember the exact number, I just remember it was shocking, I can look it up later).
And, the ICJ has said that it is likely a genocide, before their final ruling they can't obviously come out and state that it is one 100%, but from a court, this is pretty much the strongest wording they can use.
- The above is a satire. But come on what are we arguing about?
I'm sorry if the facts don't agree with your desires for something to be true. War is terrible and civilians die in all wars, especially those in urban areas where one party tunnels underneath civilian infrastructure to protect themselves while leaving civilians exposed to fire.
This does not mean that the ruling does not indicate that the court thinks a genocide is occurring.
If you simply look at the definition of a genocide and the facts on the ground, you should quite easily come to the conclusion that this is a genocide and it should end -- and that Palestinians should have legal rights to live on their indigenous land and have human rights. This is not a radical position in my mind, this should be the status quo of a person with a normative moral compass.
"This does not mean that the ruling does not indicate that the court thinks a genocide is occurring."
You've seen the video and are continuing to disagree with what the ICJ president herself has explicitly said. If you want to claim that Israel is committing genocide, you're free to do so, but don't continue to lie to yourself or others about what the ICJ has said now that you have been corrected.
"If you simply look at the definition of a genocide and the facts on the ground, you should quite easily come to the conclusion that this is a genocide..."
If you simply look at Israel government's military capabilities and the facts on the ground, should quite easily come to the conclusion that genocide is not the goal.
The Israel government's intention is clearly to kill enemy soldiers, even if it means killing civilians in the process. This is the same attitude that most countries have adopted in times of war.
The Allies did horrendously unethical things (like fire bombing millions of civilians) during WW2 but even that wasn't genocide.
Claiming that Israel's government is committing war crimes is a much more reasonable argument. It may not be true but it's not obviously false, the way the genocide claim is.
Ask yourself what Israel would do if every member of Hamas was willing to march out to a battlefield and meet them head-to-head in a large scale battle. Would Israel keep sending bombs at houses or would they target that battlefield?
Most people could be convinced that the right-wing Israel government is being unnecessarily brutal and hamfisted in their response to the Oct 7 attacks. If the goal was to convince more people to pressure Israel, that would be possible.
But the insistence upon specific word use ("genocide") is a transparent attempt at signalling in-group and out-group status. This has been a common pattern among political extremists for a long time. There's always some kind of rationalization about why its important but it's never the real reason.
Being divisive is the point.
Just like Trump's adherents signal their in-group status by pretending the 2020 Election was "stolen" so do the extreme left's adherents signal their in-group status by claiming Israel is committing a "genocide".
In both cases, the goal is not to actually convince people of something that is obviously false. The purpose is to have a loyalty test that can be used to differentiate friend and foe.
Flagged.
ICJ literally said it does NOT
If you want to get technical, sure the UN didn’t put the rubber stamp on it, but I think the more important thing is a strip of land where most buildings are reduced to dust, dozens of thousands of people are dead and millions starving. Even putting aside the morality for a second, what is the practical objective of all this?
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-undoubtedly-commit...
Corporations tend to act morally only when doing so aligns with their profit motives.
You can disbelieve this, of course, and I assume the internal protesters did disbelieve it or at least thought the tech was dual-use (I don't know what Nimbus actually is). But assuming it's true, and also assuming for the sake of argument that Israel is guilty of genocide, I think it raises an interesting question: do otherwise genocidal governments still need and deserve the right to buy civilian infrastructure to support their own people?
I think they do, and that depriving them of that infrastructure could itself rise to the level of a crime (if taken to an extreme).
And yet the IDF and other security agencies in Israel are proudly boasted of as clients in their own press releases.
I've worked in past with people who were very passionate Gaza supporters. And they received nothing but praise, but their work may have supported people involved with Oct 7th massacres. Should they be fired too?
The genocide has been ongoing for multiple decades, Israel routinely bombs civilians in Gaza, and any Palestinians living in Israel have essentially no political rights and effectively fewer property rights than other people. They have color coded passports and car license plates, and are easy to target by Zionists. Zionists get tried in civil court for committing crimes, and Palestinians living on the e.g. West Bank get tried in criminal court for any offense. An offense can include walking on a certain off-limit street if you are a Palestinian (which is not off-limit to Israelis or tourists).
Israel has killed so many more people than any Palestinian resistance forces that were engaged in October 7th (Hamas, communists, etc.), so trying to center the discussion on October 7th is fairly ridiculous.
Look at these charts and tell me with a straight face that Palestinians are the violent ones:
https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/israeli-palestinian-cas...
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5898581/chart-israel-palestine...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-20/six-charts-that-show-...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-ham...
Simply false, and in fact rather insulting to the large numbers of non-Jewish citizens of Israel who do chose to participate in the political process.
Also you seem confused about the restrictions that apply to Palestinians in the OT versus those living in Israel proper.
This kind of muddled reasoning is definitely not helpful to understanding the plight of these people who so you are supposedly so concerned about and empathic towards.
Not every bad thing or territorial war, even of conquest, is a genocide.
Your rebuttal is not a rebuttal, nobody is claiming that “every bad thing or territorial war, even of conquest, is a genocide”. People are claiming, and are being backed in said claim by several governments, international organization, the UN, and the world court, that this particular thing is a genocide.
I cited an 85 page filing at the ICJ, and claimed that several governments, international organization, the UN, and the World Court has claimed this particular thing is a genocide. If you google “Gaza genocide” you will find all these claims in the first page of results. You may even find the 85 page filing (but in case you don’t, here is a link[1]).
There is a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to this subject[2], my claims can all be found there, particularly in the section titled: Statements by political organisations and governments. Finally, if you still in doubt, I’ll give you one more source, in particular where the UN is claiming that: “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission of genocide is met” can be found in a report by the UN special rapporteur on the situation in Palestine[3].
1: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_in_the...
3: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
That doesn't explain why the right - which has been just as smugly insisting that freedom of speech must mean freedom from consequences - doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
That's actually the label the left has taken on themselves, blaming conservatives for it is really weird. Yes, the behavior of the modern left has little to do with the classical liberalism, but it's not the conservatives' fault that the left took on themselves this mantle and then failed to live up to it.
Freedom of speech is a protection from the government, not other citizens.
And I suspect the only reason people take this view is because the speech is something they agree with. Would you, for example, feel like Google was being totalitarian if Hitler Hank hosted a sit in protest against the company for hiring people of color and he was subsequently fired?
This sort of free speech has never existed and frankly it would be preposterous for it to exist.
A company couldn't fire a salesperson that went around telling potential customers "Hey, our product is garbage you should use our competitors"? A state employee couldn't be fired for lying to the races they don't like "You don't qualify for this, sorry". An employee couldn't be fired for sexually harassing coworkers because "Welp, free speech, can't stop Bill from telling Jill how much he wants to have sex with her".
If we take this right to its natural conclusion, it would preclude other rights like the freedom of association.
No, that is the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is a much larger concept.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Some people mistakenly believe that the first amendment is identical to the above; it is not:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
Damn. I guess that NOW HN cares about free speech, after highly paid fellows get fired from their jobs for doing dumb shit
I also believe they should be allowed to express their views at work and that is consistent with my views in the past.
What's remarkable is that SV allowed protests against US, china, russia, anyone really. But protest against israeli war crimes is where they drew the line.
SV, media, congress, everyone supported violent protests that burned down cities. But peaceful protests in college campuses against israeli genocide is where they send in the storm troopers.
In china, they send in the storm troopers if you protest communist rule. It's interesting what we send the storm troopers for. Food for thought.
They were fired for blocking a senior executives private office.
Do that in the name of US, china, russia, sesame street, and you're getting fired.
That must be it. That must be why the media, congress, colleges, etc are all cracking down on protests. Where were they a few years ago when 'peaceful protests' were 'peacefully' burning down cities? It says something when both MSNBC and Fox News agree on cracking down on protests.
That very much depends on which political voice it is. If it's within approved voices, which lies very heavily to the left, then you'll be likely celebrated. But if you take it too far left - or, horrible dictu, a little to the right - then you'd get the boot. It's been like this 10 years ago and is now, it's just now the incessant push to the left is temporarily diverging from what Google approves, and also the tolerance for physically disruptive actions seems to thin out - while the left seems to get more and more bold, graduating from writing letters to physically disrupting work. The combination of non-approved cause and physical disruption is a sure recipe to get the boot, indeed.
Having a political voice is different than having a voice against sexual harassment at the workplace. Please don't mix things that don't belong together. Radically expressing your political voice during your job duties will get you fired in almost all companies. SV was very lax with this in the past. They just adjusted to how it is normally handled in corporate.