the hair splitting and pontificating while Palestinian families are being starved and murdered on instagram live is…………………………………….i’m glad u consider this some kind of intellectual exercise but uh now is not the time to do genocide justifications to win the imaginary quiz bowl trophy in ur head. weirdo behavior.
FUCK IT FREE BLOCK!!!
You see this is what I'm saying by everything you say when it comes to Palestine activism has a direct impact on palestinians. Do you think that these people are saying something... new? There are SO many Palestinian international lawyers involved in world courts because they realize that int law can be a tool to be wielded against their oppression but we also understand that same international law does nothing to help on on the ground.
Like this rhetoric is EXACTLY what israeli politicians and iof commanders are using to kill people. We are in the midst of a genocide, we don't have time to be like "Well actually, according to international law" or whatever. But sure, the people who are complaining about the way the Atlantic published a genocide apologia piece during a current massacre campaign are definitely not Palestinian nor do they understand anything about Palestinian activism (/sarcasm).
Does it occur to you people that the ones most mad about these genocide apologia pieces are Palestinians themselves or do we just not exist to you??
part of media literacy is recognizing that
- the atlantic's editor in chief is a former idf prison guard who called palestinians a "death cult" even as he stood by and watched his friends commit horrific abuses against palestinians during the first intifada, knowing that none of his fellow soldiers would be held accountable for them, and has spent his time in journalism being a vile apologist for zionist crimes masquerading as a voice of reason
- the atlantic has been subsequently publishing some of the most reprehensible work on palestine and gaza, surpassed only by the wall street journal and vying with the new york times
- an article that outlines that international law does legally allow the killing of children during a genocide may seem like it is simply noting the limitations of international law, but the overall takeaway from the article is that it is concerned as to how this affects israel's reputation and options and not that at least 14,000 children have been killed with the no repercussions worth mentioning, and no real movement within international law to stop this relentless mass murder of children
- in that case the quick notation of "by the way you can legally kill children, not that i'm saying you should, i'm just saying you CAN" is contextually not critical of killing children in their tens of thousands at all nor is it sufficiently critical of this law
- rather the article is critical of the fact that israel isn't making a good enough case to be using this law as coverage for its child murder, and more significantly that too many people have seen what "legally killing a child" may look like
- last of all, israel has been "legally killing children" in both gaza and the west bank since its inception, but particularly since oslo. this is according to israel, where any palestinian child is a threat even if israeli settlers have no right to be in the west bank and under international law palestinians have a legal right to armed resistance. palestinians can "legally kill" an israeli occupation soldier or armed settler in the west bank and yet you'd probably never read that in the atlantic. but instead you can read about legally killing children in gaza with 2000 pound bombs.
- i wonder how the readers of the atlantic feel about palestinian children after reading that article. i'm sure they're much comforted by the thought that there is a legal justification for all the child murder somewhere, if only israel could just utilize it efficiently
ah i was so incensed by the attempt to accuse palestinians of being unable to parse through a clear vile article that i forgot to highlight the most reprehensible part of the quoted comment, which is saying "the law says a child can be killed if he is pointing a gun at you" when in fact the example given in the article is far worse:
"if one is being attacked by an enemy who hides behind the child"
OP of the tags (and the freaks in the notes) are desperate to soften the phrasing of this article by implying killing children is ok if they're evil little children pointing guns at you, but the article is not even interested in whether the child is harming you. the article is interesting in killing a child to prevent an attack to yourself, clearly intended as companion to the long-debunked hasbara "hamas human shields" line, which does not actually apply under IHL for gaza and is just that: hasbara. the article is arguing that killing a child could be possible in completely different circumstances, attempting to convince you that perhaps these circumstances apply here. it's not merely that this is poorly disguised genocide apologism, it's also absurd that the freaks who have the audacity to talk down to palestinians in the notes are trying to say this article is somehow a defense of international law and therefore the criticism of it is a criticism of the law when israel does not abide by international law anyway. these children are not legally killed, and although israel and the author of the article certainly wish (and are trying to convince you) its possible to find a situation where you can legally kill tens of thousands of palestinian children and the only problem would be how disturbing it would be to onlookers, that situation does not exist.
that said, i don't think this is a matter of insufficient literacy on their part, but rather a matter of insufficient humanity.