[flagged]
Who should, if not the company who makes the product? Nobody? Courts after harm has occurred?
We have these exact controls in place for military hardware. If your company builds missiles, you better believe it's your responsibility not to sell to enemies of the state.
(Edit: I'd like to avoid the parent's particular example, as it's still an extremely polarizing issue. I hope we can still discuss cooperate responsibility in general.)
The government already decides that for you.
You can only (and only somewhat) decide to not sell things the government says you can to people the government says you can.
Aside from that? Jail.
So basically when IBM was selling business machines that were being used in the concentration camps to the Nazi government it was ok. And when other US companies were selling all kinds of things including technology to the Nazis, which were used in the war, including for killing actual American soldiers.
And if the Nazis won and were able to implement all they wanted at a global scale, these companies wouldn't be responsible for aiding the Nazi war effort and its eventual triumph.
> people to mask-off with antisemitism trying
Children are being murdered on live video. That's crazy talk at this point. If murdering children is semitism, then you are on the wrong side. If it isn't, then you are just talking nonsense because what they are doing is unjustifiable.
The murder wont go away and the discussion wont stop if you scream 'anti-semitism'. Stop murdering children first.
Of course, Israelis and their supporters will say the same thing.
There is no one party to this state of affairs still alive that threw the first stone. There was October 7, before that there were settlements and annexations, before that there were intifadas, before that there were mandates, civil wars etc, all the while punctuated by stray killings, bombings and rocket attacks, on and on reaching back millennia.
I think plenty of people are tired of the simplistic, reductive, one-side treatment protesters give the issue, as you’re showing here. They think they can dictate to everyone how it should be solved. Condescension like that just never plays well.
Comparing the Israel-Palestine conflict to Nazi Germany is both a qualitative and quantitative error. The degree to which Israel has killed Palestinians is dwarfed by the numbers the Nazis put up. The Nazis invaded many countries, occupying a total area over ten times the size of modern Germany. All that in the span of a decade or two, depending on when you count the start; compared to a conflict that in modern times alone is measured in a hundred years, with a small fraction of the impact. With multiple countries committed to their destruction.
It’s a disappointing comparison and I can’t help but think it’s made deliberately to provoke an emotional reaction.
But it can be the consequence, because they don't care. Then they argue that it isn't a genocide but who are they to decide? The culprit can't decide.
> Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part..
Wikipedia
That's exactly what Israel is doing from the POV of the whole world but they disagree.
The countries that claim Israel is committing genocide are mostly authoritarian countries.
I'd pedantically classify this as "not genocide" based on my understanding of the word but it's still 100x as bad as, say, Srebenica.
I'm saying I don't think they are by any objective measure and the constant fixation with accusing Israel of war crimes and genocide, combined with the disgusting amount of antisemitism I've seen after 10/7 has led me to the conclusion that accusing them of imagined crimes is deeply rooted in antisemitism.
"Greater Israel" can only come about through mass crimes against humanity and expansionist/pseudo-revanchist military adventurism.