Watching Israel's Disgusting G*nocide Trial Defense
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 січ 2024
- Watch my reaction to the first part of the trial here: • Watching The Brutal Op...
🔴 Website - www.vaush.gg/
💵 Patreon - / vaush
👕 MERCH - merch.whitefore.st/
😎 JOIN PROGRESSIVE VICTORY: progress.win/vaush
🌟 Other Socials 🌟
⭐️ 2nd Channel - / thevaushpit
👀 3rd Channel? - / @vaushvidya
🐦 Twitter - / vaushv
👾 Twitch - / vaushvidya
📸 Instagram - / vaushv
🔵 Facebook - / vaushvidya
🎵 TikTok - / vaushvidya
🎙Podcast - anchor.fm/vaush
Intro animation credit goes to / itismekyleg & / honeybunnbadger for the visuals, and / sound_sierra for the audio! Thank you!
#israel #palestine #politics
Watch my reaction to the first part of the trial here:
ua-cam.com/video/lmrsCNiJBTc/v-deo.html
H&mas has the right to defend itself
I stopped watching Hasan bc of eating on stream, please stop
@@ogedeh of all the reasons...
You whined like a brat that they're not making enough legal arguments the whole way through the intro, and then skipped ALL the legal arguments (you watched Shaw for like 5 minutes). You deserve Hasan, and you're basically two sides of the same coin, but you come with more jingoism. YOU LAUGHED AT HAMAS TALKING ABOUT MURDERING PEOPLE, JUST LIKE HASAN LAUGHING AT MISSILES HITTING SHIPS. You're gross. Unironically Vaush Bad and it seems like you are disinformation just like Hasan. I actually expected better, but you clearly didn't take this seriously. It's all just a larf, right. Memes and tik tok. You seem like a bad person here legitimately.
Vaush i don't know if you noticed, but the collage of pictures of victims at 27:00 actually contain multiple duplicates. Like, quite a few..
“Holocaust. Anti-Semistism. Nazis. Hamas. Hamas Hamas Hamas. Israel must defend itself. South Africa is Hamas. Hamas Hamas Hamas.”
-Israel’s ICJ Defense
nazis do sound like scum dont they
I think you forgot about Hamas. Also this is actually genocide against the Jews. Did we mention Hamas yet?
That is because they are in a war with Hamas.
Think you forgot that South Africa didn't condemn Hamas!
Note: of course they did
@@JasonWolfeYT The ICJ case was about the cost to Palestinian civilians, not about whether Hamas was evil.
I love and hate that Israel's core defense is that they can't be committing a genocide because they had a genocide committed against them and the term was coined by a jew. It's so deeply telling.
It’s really insane. A highschool debate team or literally anyone with half a brain can see the problems with that reasoning.
It's a straight up "abuse victim becomes an abuser" mentality and it's so gross
@@tatersalad76 that's the cycle of violence, baby. It's tragically ironic, it's gross, yet no less real.
Yeah that's what kind of annoyed me it pisses me off in the sense that they are making excuses for their genocide. But on the other hand I'm kind of glad they decided to use such a terrible argument.
@@zkapsh exactly. In trying to muddy the ethical waters through bad faith argumentation, they're actually being extremely transparent. Most people aren't susceptible to this level of idpol hand wringing.
What would the consequences have been if Israel simply didn’t show up or mount a defense?
literally nothing 💀
Nothing other than looking bad.
Be found guilty in their absence, that's what usually happens if you don't turn up to a court summons.
Probably lead to US finally pulling its support
Angels cry and shake their heads in shame
"If you're not with us, you're a part of Hamas."
That is all I am hearing from this 'defence'.
"Also, look at this dead baby. Aren't they cute? Hamas killed them."
They're also saying that.
I think I might also have caught a wiff of "Everyone in Gaza are Hamas, so there are no civillians to be civillian casualties. Including the babies."
I love how he goes from "Jews cannot do genocide" to decrying idpol.
He is just like Ben Shapiro. Idpol is toxic and woke… unless of course a Zionist is doing it.
Israel gives me "we were persecuted so we can do whatever we want" vibes.
Standing there and explaining why what Hamas does is terrible, but indiscriminately bombing hospitals, schools, and churches is somehow perfectly ok. This shit is fucking wild.
Standing there, I realized, you were just like me, trying to make history... (this is a meme, please don't kick me)
@@tartoflan
But who can judge the right from wrong?
It's the cornerstone of... everything about them. Holocaust guilt. If anyone dares to criticise them, the immediate response is accusations of anti-semitism. They were the victims of an genocide once, yes - that doesn't mean they can't be the perpetrators of another now.
The friend that weaponizes therapy speak
@@realdaggerman105 When our guard is down, I think we'll both agree
He says several times that "these attacks by Hamas 'in no way justify war crimes' in response" but his argument is literally"look what hamas has done, we can only respond by doing what we are doing"
I hope that gets taken into account, their lawyer literally says what they're doing isn't ok
So Isreal's defense is essentially:
1 - We helped write the book on anti genocide.
2 - Mom, they started it!
3 - We're hurting too, guys. We're just smol beans.
yes. next question.
@_Social.Liberalist No, it's not. You could put it in nicer terms.
"Hitler didn't WANT to gas the jews. He was just forced to because otherwise..."
On second thought, maybe don't try and be nicer about it...
@_Social.Liberalist how?
@@AlyxczThe defense didnt say anything like that
I'm not Jewish, but I lost Jewish ancestors in Germany to the Holocaust. I'll never forget my grandfather being unable to enter Dachau in 2001 because he was too afraid of seeing images of people he knew being held in the camps.
Not only does the Holocaust not absolve Israel of perpetrating genocide, it makes them doubly culpable on a moral level for carrying one out in Gaza. To have been made the victim of such horrors, only to perpetrate them decades later in the name of self-defence (as the Nazis, too, argued) is the most evil thing I have yet witnessed in my life. If my grandparents were still alive I have no doubt they would feel the same, having seen firsthand the evils of the Nazi regime and wanting no people ever to suffer anything of their like.
They started their genocide in the 40s. They didnt wait decades, they waited a few weeks
god, that story about your grandfather is gut wrenching. i never imagined going to those museums AS a survivor. i wouldn’t be able to look at the pictures either, knowing that my friends may be in them. god that’s horrific. this really touched me and colored my view of genocide a little bit. like i have to digest that right now, i felt that really vividly. yeesh.
Well said
Sry but this is just the a dumb comparison lol. The nazis didn’t get attacked by the Jews while Israel got attacked just a big logical fallacy
@@cybercipher5770it’s a pretty obvious comparison and a good one to make.
It really rubs me the wrong way when people, completely uncritically, claim Hamas "started the war", as if Israel had just been minding their own bussiness doing nothing and got suddenly attacked for no reason.
Make no mistake, Hamas deserves *no pity* and they're directly responsible for the current escalation, but let's not pretend that Palestine hasn't been living under war conditions for years before now.
Israel directly helped Hamas gain control of Gaza because Fatah was popular internationally
What happened on october 7th again?
@@basedindividual5060What happened in all the decades before that?
@@ZackSavage No they did not, loner box debunked this.
@@DanJuega This is not about the decades before its about what started the current conflict. Which was the october 7th attacks.
I was counting until he brought up Hamas, got to 20 seconds and he brings up Holocaust... I have no words
Bringing up Hamas does make sense because that is what sparked the war. Bringing up the Holocaust in the first minute was ridiculous though
The main argument of the Israelis can just be boiled down into whatboutism even in one of the highest courts in the land I can't escape petty internet-level debate tactics and fallacies
When you have no argument there's only do many fake arguments you can make
what so you mean "one of", it IS the highest court in the world
turns out that right-wing politics is stupid crap all the way up
South Africa: You are doing genocide as shown here, here, here, and here
Israel: Have you considered "Hamas bad"?
The defense in a nutshell, "Yeah, we're doing genocide, but have you considered that Hamas is bad?"
And remember the Holocaust that a totally different country did almost a century ago? Like c’mon guys just let us get away with a tiny genocide real quick right now
Vaush: "Biden is committing a genocide, but you better fucking vote for him. Have you considered trump is also bad?"
Same shit
@@rudeboyjohn3483totally. This is completely like voting in presidential elections. You’re absolutely right, lesser of two evils voting is actually fundamentally the same as justifying a genocide with appeals to emotion. What an incredible argument.
@@rudeboyjohn3483 The problem with this argument is that Trump would also be committing a genocide if he was President.
@@rudeboyjohn3483not really. trump the type of dude to put boots on the ground in gaza to help the idf. dont forget, he officially recognized jerusalem as the capital of israel, a blatant pivot away from the dual-national UN charter.
The most infuriating thing about this whole debacle is how nobody ever mentions that Israel still holds thousands of Palestianians as hostages, and has done for decades.
am I hearing him correctly??? "We coined the term so we can't be guilty of it!" what tHE FUCK
Imagine if when Ed Gein went on trial he opened with “Your honour, have you considered I had a bad childhood?”
Kind of getting sick of living through these back-to-back "major" historical moments..
the crazy 20s electric boogaloo
We’ve lived through major historic events the whole time. It’s just easier to know it now because our communication tech is so accessible and widely used. That’s what it means to be cursed with knowledge.
Think it’ll genuinely make humans act better once the ones in charge are intimately aware that their actions can be outed to the world and known by millions? I hope so.
The whole "May you live in interesting times" was a curse for a reason.
@@Syzygy_Bliss I don't wanna rain on your parade, but lots of people shamed America during the war in the middle east and that changed nothing. Trusting the sociopathic leaders to change instead of forcing them is too charitable for these monsters
@@Syzygy_Bliss Nah, the 10s were not as cursed and we already had all the technology. And the century before that also didn't feel as hopeless, but I'm 27, so it may have been because of my age that I didn't experience news the same way. But we really seem to live in a century right now where all the already existing conflicts of the last decades suddenly become especially critical. Like most of the problems existed and caused their harm, but now it all just errupts in quick succession.
So, if you already know that Hamas did tons and tons of torture and war crimes and have already concluded that this doesn‘t justify Israel‘s actions… then there is just no defense here, do I see it correct?
I really was expecting a stronger defense from Israel than these appeals to emotions. I get it, listing the horrors of the Hamas attack can be a powerful EMOTIONAL tool… but it‘s not an actual defense.
As did I. I was expecting SOMETHING, ANYTHING. But no, he STARTS by referring to the Holocaust, IT WAS THE VERY FIRST THING HE SAID. Like come on man
The problem is that geocide is a crime no matter its context. Hamas could have also done a geocide to Israel, and it still wouldn’t justify doing one to Palestine.
The reason why the guy actually wasn’t arguing that Israel has responsibly handled civilian casualties when hunting Hamas is because it’s a blatant lie that would weaken his credibility and that of his arguments and client.
But not being able to lie about the conflict means that he can’t defend Israel’s response in the same way that Netanyahu and the rest of the Israel government has been doing so. Consider why his message might be different from the government’s message, and why he, a very proficient lawyer, chose to almost exclusively make pathos arguments based on annecdotes (aka: the type of argument that leverages emotions rather than conveying facts via analysis)
Edit: now he did make logical arguments, but all of them were logic based on the hypothetical that Israel’s narrative about Palestine is correct and Hamas’ narrative is a lie. They only concerned hypotheticals to feign engagement with the facts on the ground.
They aren't addressing any of the horrible actions they took. Doing it this way just makes it seem like they're saying the atrocities committed in their name are justified not that they didn't do them. Makes them look guilty af
As per usual, if they're "defending" themselves in English, it's intended to be an optics win no matter what the ICJ decides. Seems like they started off having given up on defending themselves with facts.
And this isn't an actually legally binding proceeding.
Isreal: "no we didn't commit a genocide because god"
"But religion doesn't cause any harm." -theists, unironically, every friggin time
…. What’s the difference of Israel using god as an excuse but Muslims can use Allah for the excuse for every wrong (or right) action?
There is no difference, but it doesn’t make it right when either group does it.
@@Whatisahandlehuh When Muslims (or anyone else, for that matter) do it, they're just as wrong and for the exact same reasons. Having "god" as an excuse is functionally equivalent to having no excuse.
Based
That opening statement of "6mil jews were killed in genocide" has serious "mom says it's my turn with the xbox" vibes.
I’m honestly kind of surprised they were allowed to talk about October 7th for the entire opening statement. I thought that there were penalties for talking about subjects that have no relevance to the case at hand. At one point, Israel’s attorney even states that 10/7 was irrelevant to the question of whether or not South Africa’s claims are true. So it’s just a pure emotional appeal, not a legal argument in defense of Israel’s actions…yet they were still allowed to prattle on about 10/7 for hours. The case is about 10/8 and beyond…
Honestly I thought one of the strongest points South Africa made was that there was already an acknowledged humanitarian crisis before 10/7 even with aid that was being supplied then.
These are sovereign states, representing themselves, you can't really hold them in contempt of court or something.
@@mathiasbartl903 I assumed they could still penalize them in some way I guess. It feels weird that they’re just allowed to give a completely irrelevant opening statement that makes no arguments whatsoever against the claims of South Africa. Like it was just a complete waste of time for everyone.
The powdered wig dipshit’s statement, while ridiculous and gross, was at the very least a legal argument
Being a allie of America allows for a lot of wiggle wrong to do whatever.
There is a reason Israel is so bold because America backs it unconditionally.
The whole case is an emotional appeal. There's nothing to actually suggest Israel is guilty.
I might be misremembering what my rabbi said but i dont think that doing a Trail of Tears is good just because sky daddy said we could
Imagine claiming someone is smuggling weapons while also claiming they have control of their borders. They tell on themselves with constant cognitive dissonance.
The idea that he talked about gaza and hamas for 22 minutes as if it was a war against an enemy state is frankly hilarious when you realize that isreal doesnt recognize palistinian statehood. Therefor his entire argument validates palistinian statehood which then implies this is a genocide against noncombatant civilians which turns this from a genocide trial to a military war criminal tribunal.
Yeah. This comes across more like PR than an actual defense.
I just wanted to add: the classic bad guy trope is for someone to use an innocent civilian as leverage to get away. The classic good guy trope is to grapple with the dilemma but eventually choose to let the bad guy go to preserve innocent life. Good guys make every effort to protect the innocent.
They cannot defend their atrocities so yeah appeal to emotion is all they got.
Honestly the only thing worth hearing during this video was Vaush’s commentary
Israel: Yes we talked about and are committed to ethnically cleansing and in doing so committing a genocide, but it’s self defense and it would be very convenient for us if you allow us to continue “defending” ourselves bc the Holocaust happened
"It's not a genocide" meanwhile Netanyahu is now saying "from the river to the sea"
6:53 again, if uninvolved countries don't get involved to stop genocide then who will, it's not like the Palestinians have the resources to sue in international Court
As a Ukrainian who has been always friendly towards Israel, it still impossible to overlook the fact that Israel behaves like Russia, similar propaganda, similar lack of humanity, similar eagerness to destroy as many Palestinians as possible (and blame them for it, i.e. the Russian infamous rhetoric "Ukrainians are bombing themselves").
This is the Universal behavior of all ultra-right regimes throughout the world.
Humanity isn't something that they naturally possess, nor care about.
Israel is under attack though much like Ukraine. Villages were indiscriminately massacred by Hamas to start the war. Just because they're taking it to their relentless enemy doesn't make them in the wrong.
Yeah bullshit excuses.😒@@TheSm1thers
@@sunnysteel6598 Salty Islamofascist detected.
@@TheSm1thers Ha nice comeback kid.🙄
nice bait @@TheSm1thers
The way Israel treats this court hearing like twitter drama is really pathetic in my eyes. Not to say that I disagree with the genocide accusations of South Africa, but the Israeli defense could've made a far more compelling argument in front of the judge.
No they cannot, which is why they appeal to emotion.
There has never been an excuse for israel to exist
I feel like their objective here is the same as Trump's goal in his trials. Not trying to win in the court of law, but public opinion. They're using this opportunity to stall and propagandize.
It may not convince us, it may not convince the court, but it will convince many others that Israel is being targeted unjustly for trying to defend itself, and that any actions against them ate antisemitic. Which will keep the pressure on to continue supporting them.
@@page8301no, a better writer could have absolutely delivered better arguments. there are ways of using facts to support an untrue position, and they barely do that here. defending a genocide is really hard and it takes a strong writer to do it. they did not get a strong writer.
i do think that these defenses are exceptionally honest, and i’m grateful for that. they don’t seem to realize the hole they’re digging with these terrible arguments.
It basically is a twitter drama though. Nothing serious, just political posturing from South Africa.
"Has the court considered spontaneous combustion?" the defense rests.
They're giving priority to repeating their own narrative, intended for the general public, over actually setting up their legal defense, which makes me suspect they do neither expect the ruling to go in their favor, nor intend to respect it.
That's a great speculation.
@@DasWiggler Israel has already called South Africa something like the legal arm of Hamas or something else profoundly stupid and spiteful.
@@DasWiggler Amusing how you removed your comments in the other thread as soon as challenged. What are you up to, here?
Ngl I expected Israel's arguments to be better. I thought they might have like 20minute intro going on about october 7th before going something like:
"Yes our actions have caused civilian deaths however Hamas constantly hides among civilians and has near complete control of the Gaza strip so delivering aid that doesn't help them is extremely difficult. The civilian deaths, while tragic, are an unfortunate consequence of the way Hamas operates, we have no choice but to act like this in order to defend ourselves and prevent another october 7th. The destruction of the Gazan population was never the goal, it's outrageous to call this a genocide."
Instead they just harp on and on and on about how bad october 7th was and never try to adress SA's arguments or just argue in general about how this isn't a genocide. Literally the whole thing is just "but have you considered that Hamas is bad?".
That's because fascists are incapable of proper rational thought. Also, it's much worse than "But have you considered that Hamas is bad?"; What he's *actually* implying is "But have you considered that Palestinians deserve to be genocided?".
They get into that later but vaush skipped it.
They expect the rest of the world to participate in their circle jerk
@@basedindividual5060I don’t think that matters when their opener was that bad. They smashed their credibility. They basically just admitted they’re doing genocide… not a good look for a court imo.
Deliberately attacking civillians, civillian infrastructure and personnel used as 'human shields" by an enemy combatant is also a war crime, and that's kinda why they don't explicitly make that argument, but I guess international laws and conventions don't mean shit so who cares right?
Denial is always the first step
its a river
Scapegoating is anothe step
They should probably force these opening statements to be relevant to the proceedings being brought against Israel, rather than just deflection.
Please, don't drink a tequila shot every time that man says, "right to defend." You'll damage your liver.
I’m descended from Romani Jews who fled the holocaust and pogroms; ‘never again’ doesn’t mean ‘unless we do it’.
You mean you’re not planning to use your Free Genocide card?
@@toddjones1480 It wasn't free when it happened to my ancestors, why would it be free now? Israel getting away with doing this to the Palestinians will use these same actions and tactics against their own people. Genocide is a disease; it spreads. Ain't nobody gets a pass for doing it.
46:53 Notice how bibi worded that statement.
"Where the Palestinian people have all the power to govern themselves, but not the capacity to threaten Israel."
This falsely suggests that Palestinians will always be a threat to Israel, and is just another attempt to liken all Palestinians with Hamas.
It also shows mask off Israel with them pretty much saying "Yeah we hold all the power over Gaza and make people suffer, but we scarwed. 🥺👉👈" Odd that they'd use this quote in a court where they're being tried for geno, but then again it is Israel we're talking about.
But Palestinians _will_ always be a threat to Israel.
They're traditionalist Muslims. The bloodthirsty antisemitism is kinda a fact.
@@JoshSweetvale Do you think destroying their facilities such as hospitals, food, water, shelter, schools, etc, will push them twords or against religion?
It's sneakier than that. What exactly is a 'capacity to threaten Israel?' It means any manufacturing capacity, which could be used to make weapons. It means any external trade not subject to Israeli inspections and restrictions, which could be used to import weapons. It means not being able to access materials which could be used for military purposes, even if they also have a civilian use - like concrete which could be used to make fortified tunnels, or water pipes which could be used as missile bodies, or industrial chemicals which could be processed into explosives or chemical weapons. It means building a secure wall around Gaza with snipers and landmines to make sure the people stay contained. When he says "Not the capacity to threaten Israel" he really means "force them to live in poverty, in a giant prison, because the only way to make sure they pose no threat to us is to make sure they are utterly powerless and without any resources they could turn against us one day."
I'm doing the bingo sheet rn I've already got "they started it" and "self defense"
Notice how much time is spent priming the audience, before an actual attempt at argument can be made. It's almost as if the argument is really, really weak or something...
This whole thing has me wondering if you just need to be capable of empathy to be competent at propaganda. As in, you need to be able to imagine what someone with different beliefs to you might be persuaded by. Israel's argument seems to boil down to "We are humans, so it is a horrific crime when we are killed. They are savage vermin so it's just whatever when they are killed." And if you didn't start off having already bought into that narrative, they're not going to be able to convince you. Because they just can't get into the headspace of someone who doesn't already believe that about Palestinians.
Like, flashing up images of Israeli victims. Awful. Tragic. In no way a justification for murdering swathes of other people. Or 'We don't know who is Hamas and who isn't, so it's ok to kill all of them'. 'UN buildings and hospitals and schools are all Hamas'. There's no attempt to persuade you that Palestinians are inherently dangerous,. It's just taken as a foundational part of the propaganda. And it only seems to work on people who were already Islamaphobic. For anyone else, they've got nothing.
Not that we should be giving them advice really, keep being bad at propaganda Israel, be as bad at it as you want.
Yes we are committing genocide, but have you ever heard of Hamas?
Imagine condemning identity politics then woke scolding people for words which describe actions meeting the conventional standards of a well defined term.
As an important update, there are no longer any hospitals remaining in Gaza.
In all fairness, God wouldn't allow the Amalekites to have hospitals
/s
Because you never know.
So Israel basically just did UA-camr apology
🎶Blood libel train 🎶
Dude basically did the "Anyone who runs is Viet Cong, anyone who stands still is well-disciplined Viet Cong" bit from Full Metal Jacket.
WORST. DEFENSE. EVER!
Donald Trump actually has a better defense for January 6th, and that bar is so low it's in the outer core.
It's not a defence, it's just an attempt at justification by whataboutism.
Can't believe you missed something rather indicative of their pathetic defence - the images of peoples faces at 27 minutes; How many repeats can you count @Vaush?
I only see the baby twice and the brown hat lady twice, but man is that a lazy pandering collage. Honestly really looks bad after South Africa explicitly stated that they wouldn't pander like this.
@@pikapownsdark curly haired guy next to the baby comes up again on the far right row. Guy in the third row top left is also in the bottom right corner. Next to that guy, in the top left corner, is a girl with long hair and nails (it seems), she shows up again 3rd down 6th from the right.
Damn, there’s also a guy on the bottom 2/3 right, next to Vaush, that is also 2nd down far right row in a slightly more closely cropped photo. What a shitty tactic
Also I think the guy behind chat far left 5 down, top row next to baby. Top row 6th from left, 5th row 7th from right. Top row 5th from right, 6th row 8 from left.
Horrific descriptions of Hamas's actions is such a terrible defense because Palestinians could also show up and give just as many examples, just as graphically.
What's even worse: Gaza could do a switcheroo with imiges of Nazi concentration camps.
Show some images of Jews in Aushwitz, then go "oh, sorry, that's Nazi Germany and the Jews, these are Gaza" And the pictures of Gaza would be worse in some places.
Describing bad acts as a justification for the same bad acts on a grand scale seems like a bad strategy.
And yet that’s all the Palestinians have ever done.
This reminds me of those true crime interview videos where the murderer is a narcissist and gets easily tricked into spending the first 20 minutes of the interrogation complaining about what an asshole the victim was, how badly they were treated by them, how bad a person they were, and then 10 minutes later they have to pretend they have no idea what could have happened to them.
They know they cant fight the allegations, so they have to justify their actions.
Its insane that of all cultures, the ones who were victims of horrific acts less than a century ago, are the ones now perpetrating it.
That's the most frustrating part of it, how could someone acknowledge the horrific things they endured and in the same sentence want to do it to other people.
I love how Israel is on trail for genocide and decides to start their argument with; ‘see these things that Hamas did, that is genocide’, all while the whole world has seen the IDF film themselves doing much worse.
‘Hamas incinerated this whole family, isn’t that sad’ (we just annihilated 20 innocent families, new born baby and all)
Aren’t these supposed to be the very top of the legal profession?
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
― Carl Sandburg
Yeah, this lawyer is definitely pounding that table...
this is not a defense against the genocide charge, its a justification of it. sickening
And Palestinians have 20 times the amount of horror stories. They are just not able to tell them, yeah?
Summary for those who don't have time to watch: 'Hamas made us commit genocide.'
52:37 “I don’t want to listen to anything from a guy in a f***in’ wig!”
VAUSH ATTACKS DRAG QUEEN STORY TIME
42:46 It kinda sounded like Israel's ICJ defense included referring to every Palestinian as members of Hamas.
On the millionth of october, he will start talking about israel
Imagine calling identity politics when you're actively using your identity as your primary defense.
Conservatism at its finest friends.
Imagine talking like this while soldiers are posting videos of themselves raiding family safes and playing with dead childrens' bicycles giddily.
The definition of Genocide was indee created by Lemkin a polish Jew, but it was made to describe the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Ottomans, not the Holocaust as tthe representative of Israel claims, or at least implies.
Vaush i don't know if you noticed, but the collage of pictures of victims at 27:00 actually contain multiple duplicates. Like, quite a few..
This seems like more of a confession than a denial?
They deserved it isn't a legal defense.
Shouldn't the judge just skip to sentencing when they plead guilty?
How does this court work?
IMO South Africa presented an actual case, speaking to the judges.
Israel just did a media stunt. The literally pathetic argument wasn't directed at the judges, but at the people watching behind the cameras.
So this isn't actually a trial or anything then? It's just like a legal show-and-tell?@@OctyabrAprelya
@@AJGsTV
Yes, because the ICJ has no enforcement mechanism and Israel has no intent to comply with any of its determinations. This court, just like most international "law" institutions, is a legal show-and-tell. When it comes to foreign policy, bigger stick diplomacy wins every time.
So is there a judge or not then? Even if there's no punishment, there should be a verdict or something, right?
@@pcarrierorange
@@AJGsTV
There's 15+2 judges, they're all sitting on the loooong bench. They will, after going through the process of hearing argument, deliberate and then issue a judgment on the various matters raised by the parties. That judgment will be of no material significance to the Palestinians getting merc'd daily. It might cause some nations to act (eg sanctions or other means of applying pressure) - but this is just bigger stick diplomacy.
This video just covers Israel's first speaker's opening argument - he's not making any legal argument because that's not really his job, he's just there to set the scene and advance the narrative. Obviously he's doing way more emotional bs than the SA first speaker did, but in truth it is for the subsequent speakers to seriously address the substantive legal questions before the Court. From what I saw here, it looked like the fellow in the powdered wig was delivering a fairly coherent legal argument, for example.
Israel is arguing a) intent has not been established; b) because intent has not been established, the Court does not have any power to judge the case (because there is no genocide for them to assess); c) Israel's beneficent conduct towards Palestinians is incoherent with the charge of genocide, as a matter of fact; d) Israel's inherent right to self defence affords them broad discretion in prosecuting the conflict, so any "grey area" in what constitutes genocide should be decided in favour of Israel (ie fall within the scope of self-defence); e) SA does not have standing to sue because they are not a concerned party to the conflict (Israel appears to be challenging prior precedent - that you don't have to be a concerned party to sue - on this point).
Hopefully that breakdown illustrates why the Court cannot just go "womp womp you lose" on this matter (even if that would, in point of fact, be very funny).
I liked the part he said: *Panem today, Panem tomorrow, Panem forever.*
What does it mean, tho?
This wasnt a trial. It was a pre-trial hearing. It's a piece of the process used to determine whether there will be a trial in the future.
But one of the things that happens if they say "There should be a trial on this" is that they also tell Israel to back off.
What I'd really like to see is when they say that, Biden goes "While I agree with Israel's right to defend itself, the USA will enforce the ICJ ruling in the interests of international law being respected."
Not going to happen, but it would be nice.
they should have just said "we got genocided too, but you dont see us crying about it"
But they do.
@@Palemagpie NU-UH
They said while crying about it - despite their party line that only the weak-ass jews got got.
This will be like an episode of Night Court
Oh? We forgot about the Israeli hostages? 🤷♀️
You seem to have forgotten about the Palestinian hostages... you know.. ALL OF THEM!
They're not hostages, they're arguably prisoners, arguably enslaved.
Wow, they go right to the holocaust at the very beginning, amazing.
i know the ICJ isn't really comparable to an individual criminal court, but isn't this a horrible defense? like if i killed my brother and was brought before the trial, and then my defense was just a list of grievances i had against him
Legally speaking, terrible defence. But there's more than law in this arena: There's also public perception, and political influence. The strategy here appears to be not to offer a defence - that would mean having to talk at length about all the accusations levied against Israel, which would be terrible with regards to public relations. Instead it's to keep turning the discussion back towards Hamas.
Even if Israel lose the trial, it won't do anything - there's no way to enforce any ruling, and this hearing is only the first stage of a process that will likely continue longer than the war does anyway. It's more import to Israel right now to maintain public support in the populous of their Western allies, who they depend upon for military support, trade, and diplomatic influence.
What a terrible opening argument. Trying to play of the violin about the Holocaust and October 7th to shield oneself from genocide accusation is dumb. It actually cheapens those two events which were genuinely horrible. No matter what, Israel defense was going to look and sound ugly because even if they happen to innocent of the crime of genocide (which I think is possible) what they are doing is horrible and constitute war crimes of various types. They should have leaned on the fact that genocide is largely a crime of intent and thus very hard to prove and that Israel's government has repeated numerous times and very clearly it's military objectives in the current conflict. The defense of Israel should have been "we must destroy Hamas; diplomacy has failed; limited strikes and blockades have failed; now it's total war until they capitulate without conditions; we are doing to Gaza and it's government what the free world did to Japan and Germany to stop them from threatening and murdering". This makes them sound like cruel assholes, but it's a more sensible defense against genocide.
Israel's response: Nah uh
"bUt KhRaMaS" 🤬😭
14:41 off topic, but the man tapping on the screen, probably writing... I imagine he is playing candy crush 💀💀
Least genocidal IDF defense
"A senior Hamas delegation who, incredibly, visited South Africa for a 'solidarity gathering', just weeks after [October 7th]"
Oh, so also weeks after Israel started bombing Civilians again? Gotcha.
The implication that this is somehow South Africa inviting Hamas over for an "October 7th yay we did terrorism"-party, or whatever, is wild.
Imagine how idiotic a person needs to be to defend this
Specifically on the phone call thing, the dad's response is actually to repeatedly shout "allahu akbar" before bursting into tears and saying "god bless you my son".
Of COURSE the Israel rep says "we're in a war", but a basic rule is that the conditions of war do not justify genocide.
Just because your enemy is "evil" does not justify you committing evils yourself. Also, the war acts supoosedly committed NOW do not justify PRIOR years of mistreatment and ghettoization of a minority group.
Imagine if America still had Japanese Americans in internment camps since the 1940s, then the President got angry when a few bust out and blow something up, leading to the Air Force bombing the camps.
Sure, that Japanese guy's act was bad, but it wasn't historically speaking out of nowhere, and the act of a few does not justify the purging or dislocation of everyone else. Of course, Hamas isn't NEARLY as innocent as Japanese Americans were, but plenty of Palestinians ARE just as innocent and are just trying to live lives.
Why is Israel talking and acting like Germany did back in the 1930's?
That's weird.
Should be a timestamp for when this lawyer finally gets to the point where he addresses the Israeli war crimes.
There is, it's an hour in to this video.
@11:30 Bassem Youssef called the IDF forces indiscriminately firing into civilian areas captured by Hamas “Hannibal protocol” i did a bit of research and it’s apparently stopped being used by IDF since 2016. The protocol calls for IDF to do anything they can to kill IDF soldiers that are potentially captured as it is apparently easier to just kill the captors and the captives than deal with hostage negotiations. Might be something to look into
Damn I just noticed I’ve been watching Vaush a long while now haha
That "guy" isn't British, he's an Australian I'm ashamed to say.
Spicy British.
Least based aussie
@@basedindividual5060Not based at all to be precise.
Isn't it odd that Israel's government is so chock full of anglosphere citizens? It would be like if significant portions of the UK state were French, or German, or Spanish.
@@alexritchie4586Or Indian, or African...
2:39 into the video, they haven't even started to speak really and here we are. If you start off saying I am black so I can't be racist. No one is going to take you seriously, this is why we collectively sigh. I'm haven't heard the arguments, I'm not choosing sides but I am already eye-rolling.
Art. 1 of the Genocide Convention says that a Contracting Party to the Convention is not allowed to commit genocide in a situation of war or in peacetime and it must actively prevent and punish genocide, which is a crime under international law. Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 but that in itself does not give Israel carte blanche to do whatever it wants in the context of an armed conflict.
It's definitely shallow, but the SA team looks crisp and good while the Israel team looks cheap and shlubby. Not a legitimate argument, but definitely not helping their case.
Maybe they were going for War Chic like Zelensky?
Is it just me, or is Israel's defense just the same argument as "black people can't be racist"?
Officer, how could I be actively robbing this store? I, myself, have been robbed! My great grandfather even coined the term "robbery," and frankly, your accusation makes me suspect that YOU are a robber. Now please, put your wallet on the floor, give me your gun, and leave.
man i wished they wouldve talk about october 7th sooner it realy does change EVERYTHING when you realise that they "had it coming"
FYI, Papal Infallibility doesn't mean every decree the Pope issues is infallible. It has to be specially invoked, and that has only ever happened like 2 or 3 times, for relatively obscure and uncontroversial dogma. I think one of the infallible decrees was the the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, which is what Catholics believe Mary was teleported to Heaven and never died.
21:05 so Palestine is a state then?
Actually, I find the Israel's lawyer's arguments very convincing: Hamas is bad.
What's that? That's not what the trial is about? I see...
11:35 Incompetence is not an excuse for malice. Hamas is getting everything they want from Israel's failure to deal with an effective insurgency.
No traditional military has found an effective answer to insurgency. The US has come closest which should keep nazis on edge but still...
Israel is playing into the terrorist game because they're politically cornered and unable to take a step back and realize that the answer is more people: They need to find a means of creating flows of people, instead of insisting on populations pooling.
7:50 Can we just appreciate the absolute badass South African rep staring holes into what remains of the soul of the Israeli rep? Like goddamn, respect.
"Objection! Relevance?"
I like to imagine that Netanyahu is just sitting in front of a real life Stellaris racism chart just spamming “purge” on Palestinians