On Wednesday, 1,200 Israeli university academics and administrators issued an open letter protesting the “war crimes and even crimes against humanity” committed by the Israeli military in Gaza.
A livestreamed genocide where the perpetrators were unapologetically genocidal since day 0
That’s evidence of a genocidal act, and of intent of the precise perpetrators. It does not, on its own, prove that Israel, as opposed to merely those people, are guilty of genocide. Israel could, for example, have brought them to justice themselves.
And you’re white-washing their cowardice as scholarly integrity and standards. Bullshit.
Upholding things like the presumption of innocence and due process does not preclude me from shouting “stop the thief”. As said: I’ve been doing that since day one. Yet, when dragging that thief before court, I’d still expect the court to actually look at the matter in detail. Those procedural hoops exist for good reason: Justice cannot be served by mob rule.
And that has to be established, instead of just assumed… If you’re a scholar or judge. Activists can and should just assume it given that there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence.
You don’t want activist scholars or judges because then you don’t have scholars or judges any more, is all I’m saying. Leave the activism to the activists.
Judges. Scholars. Neither operate on the assumption of guilt, but assumption of innocence. And there’s a very fucking good reason to do that, to see what assumption of guilt does to a people simply observe how the Israeli right considers Palestinians: Guilty unless proven otherwise. You can’t fight barbarism by succumbing to it.
There is zero assumptions of guilt here. Only hitler was as clear as israel about genocide intents. Denying the genocide at this point is like denying the holocust when it occured.
Human right reports and idf themselves filming themself comiting crimes show that the intent is also applied on thr ground
If the presecutor has all the necessary proofs and still refuse to acknowledge the genocide then he is complicit in it and you defending him for that is genocide apologia even if you don’t realize it
And the judge, before all evidence, all arguments are in, the prosecutor has been heard, the defence has been heard, the defender has been heard, and everything has been deliberated with other judges? Would you also require of them to call it a genocide the day the prosecutor brings the case to court?
That’s evidence of a genocidal act, and of intent of the precise perpetrators. It does not, on its own, prove that Israel, as opposed to merely those people, are guilty of genocide. Israel could, for example, have brought them to justice themselves.
Upholding things like the presumption of innocence and due process does not preclude me from shouting “stop the thief”. As said: I’ve been doing that since day one. Yet, when dragging that thief before court, I’d still expect the court to actually look at the matter in detail. Those procedural hoops exist for good reason: Justice cannot be served by mob rule.
Israel didn’t even arrest thr nekba zionist terrorist. Israel just scape goat some low level soldiers to act like israel crimes are not systematic
And that has to be established, instead of just assumed… If you’re a scholar or judge. Activists can and should just assume it given that there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence.
You don’t want activist scholars or judges because then you don’t have scholars or judges any more, is all I’m saying. Leave the activism to the activists.
How can anybody seriously believe that it is not established. Anybosy who deny the genoce is in a certain level complicit
Judges. Scholars. Neither operate on the assumption of guilt, but assumption of innocence. And there’s a very fucking good reason to do that, to see what assumption of guilt does to a people simply observe how the Israeli right considers Palestinians: Guilty unless proven otherwise. You can’t fight barbarism by succumbing to it.
There is zero assumptions of guilt here. Only hitler was as clear as israel about genocide intents. Denying the genocide at this point is like denying the holocust when it occured. Human right reports and idf themselves filming themself comiting crimes show that the intent is also applied on thr ground
You are simply doing genocide apologia here
I have been calling what Israel is doing a genocide like four or five times now. In this very thread. Watch where you’re aiming.
There is a difference between a prosecutor calling the accused a murderer, and a judge calling the accused a murderer. Can you follow me this far.
If the presecutor has all the necessary proofs and still refuse to acknowledge the genocide then he is complicit in it and you defending him for that is genocide apologia even if you don’t realize it
And the judge, before all evidence, all arguments are in, the prosecutor has been heard, the defence has been heard, the defender has been heard, and everything has been deliberated with other judges? Would you also require of them to call it a genocide the day the prosecutor brings the case to court?