World News

503 readers

517 users here now

Please help and contribute as we vote on rules:
https://quokk.au/post/21590

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 10 months ago

MODERATORS

Deceptichum@quokk.au

Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com

PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au

198

The term ‘antisemitism’ is being weaponised and stripped of meaning – and that’s incredibly dangerous (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 months ago by Timbits@lemmy.ca to c/world@quokk.au

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When the international criminal court issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials in November, the response from the country’s government was all too familiar. The prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejected outright the warrants for alleged war crimes in Gaza against him and the former defence minister Yoav Gallant, calling them “an antisemitic decision”. The ultranationalist national security adviser, Itamar Ben-Gvir, declared that the court had shown “once again that it is antisemitic through and through”. And the transport minister, Miri Regev, chimed in, claiming: “This is modern antisemitism in the guise of justice.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The attempt to call out words losing their meaning here is a little ironic when you put alleged in front of war crimes in this context.

I understand that in cases where you would want to avoid being sued but in this case: "rejected outright the warrants for alleged war crimes"

The warrant is for war crimes, the warrant is not alleging, the warrant is accusing, therefore you can safely claim he was issued a warrant for war crimes without trying to do this did they or didn't they bullshit the media keeps on doing.

There is enough public evidence to wrap this shit up in seconds.

[–] Matombo@feddit.org 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No, the warrant is for alleged war crimes, because "innocent until proven guilty" and the secound part can only happen in the courtroom.

Sadly, since the ICC does not judge in absence of the accused, we will likely never hear the final verdict, so the "alleged" part is here to stay.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

That does make sense, I was worried I was thinking about it oddly but I guess that does make sense.