The pro-Palestinian movement has a literal, direct, documented connection to Nazis, and its behavior is entirely dedicated to the elimination of the only Jewish state in existence without compromise or negotiation, yet it's "The Zionists" who are accused of genocide.
> Israel's neighbors kill and displace Muslims at a far greater rate than Israel would even dream
What are you talking about? Are you saying that Israel wants to kill Muslims?
Israel has so far killed over 34000 Palestinians in the ongoing genocide. This level of killing is nowhere to be found in the neighboring region. You’ll have to go all the way to Sudan to find a similar number, where there is a civil war, and (yes) a plausible genocide. Even before Oct 7. in 2023 alone Israel killed at least 278 Palestinians in the West Bank (including 70 children). You don’t see these kind of number in the neighboring countries.
> The pro-Palestinian movement has a literal, direct, documented connection to Nazis
Where? Can you provide me with a source. I don’t recall this in the news. And even if they did, this does not negate the Palestinian cause. If a particular member of a particular movement has documented connection to Nazis, and said movement does not kick that person out and denounce them, then that single movement should be denounced, and this would not affect other movements.
> and its behavior is entirely dedicated to the elimination of the only Jewish state in existence without compromise or negotiation
I’ll leave aside for a moment the fact that you take it as a given that a particular groups should have an ethno-state deticated to them, but who wants to eliminate Israel without compromise or negotiations? Most of everybody wants negotiations, even staunch proponents of a 1-state solution usually want guaranteed civil rights to Jews and Arabs alike (albeit, sometimes omitting recent settlers in occupied West Bank from this). Even Hamas is currently advocating for a 2 state solution with a right to return for displaced Palestinians. Who is this group that doesn’t want any compromise or negotiations. Honestly Israel is much more uncompromising than any pro-Palestinian actor.
That said, being against an ethno-state is not an unreasonable, nor a racist position to take. A lot of people wanted Rhodesia to stop existing, they were not racists, they simply didn’t think it was reasonable that a segregationist settler colonial state should exist on indigenous lands.
> "The Zionists" is a dog whistle
It is not. Zionism is an ideology distinct from Judasim. There are plenty of non-zionist Jews, and even more non-Jewish Zionists. Zionism is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition of Judaism. Most pro-Palistinian demonstrators do in fact call out non-Jewish zionists, such as Joe Biden, all the time.
Syria was a civil war with who knows how many dead, its over half a million easily. Iraq I'm not an expert on but parts of what's happened and still is happening there seems like a civil war to me, number of dead is huge.
How is the Israeli-Gaza war a civil war btw?
If you don't look at the artificial definition of civil wars, the region is even more violent with millions more dead in conflicts - Yemen / Saudi Arabia, Iran-Iraq etc.
Not a chance. What's happening in Gaza now will be no more forgotten than all the other trenches filled with civilian bodies (adult and infant) thanks to the various atrocities of WW II.
"Mowing the lawn" it ain't.
If we include wars from over 20 years ago, we should also include the numbers of atrocities committed by Israel against Palestinians in the same time period. Including the Great March of Return massacres in 2018-2019 where Israel murdered 223 Palestinians, most of whom were unarmed civilians.
Now the total number of Palestinian victims probably won’t come anywhere near the total number of victims of the Iraq war, but a major difference is that Palestine is a lot smaller nations, and has had to suffer repeated atrocities, continuously throughout whichever time period we decide to start counting.
But my point here is that Israel’s neighbors are not “kill and displace Muslims at a far greater rate than Israel”.
You will no doubt be relieved to know that Israel is not the #1 killer of Muslims by any measure, neither now nor in the past. Armed with this new information, you will no doubt become a prominent anti-Assad and -ISIL activist, organizing marches through the streets, calling for a ceasefire?
The IDF is unequivocally the agent behind of the largest number of non-combatant Muslim deaths in a single country since Oct 7 (and most likely including all of 2023). More than Darfur, Myanmar, Yemen and Syria presently. The same outfit which holds itself up as "the most moral army in the world".
Yes there are some metrics where you can find a bigger killer of Muslims then Israel. There are other metrics where Israel is larger. But even still, Israel is killing a lot of people. Being top 5 in killing Muslim is not something you can be proud of by saying, “look at the top 4 muslim killers here”.
I'll answer, but I ask again: do you know what it is about the Palestinian cause that has you so exercised? Above, say, the Syrian or Sudanese or Yemen or Saudi or Iraqi or Lebanese causes, which are all far more deadly, even if you take Hamas' word for it. I mean, maybe you have an excellent reason...?
My answer is that there is a lack of perspective when it comes to Israel. It's better that everyone understands the scale of the death and destruction in the region. What the people of Israel risk should the state fall.
> Being top 5 in killing Muslim...
Not top 5. Not even top 10. Don't take my word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_conflicts_in_th...
In terms of immediate neighbors - just behind (and much closer to) Lebanon and Syria, but much greater numerically than Jordan / Egypt / Saudi.
Funny you should mention. At least some of the new arrivals from Europe were apparently "already well sick of the Arabs' shit" from the minute they landed in their new homeland. As Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsburg) wrote in 1891, regarding the early Zionist settlers:
They were slaves in their land of exile, and they suddenly find themselves with unlimited freedom, the kind of wild freedom to be found only in a country like Turkey. This sudden change has engendered in them an impulse to despotism, as always happens when "a slave becomes a king," and behold they walk with the Arabs in hostility and cruelty, unjustly encroaching on them, shamefully beating them for no good reason, and even bragging about what they do, and there is no one to stand in the breach and call a halt to this dangerous and despicable impulse. To be sure our people are correct in saying that the Arab respects only those who demonstrate strength and courage, but this is relevant only when he feels that his rival is acting justly; it is not the case if there is reason to think his rival's actions are oppressive and unjust.
Of course by 1917 everyone knew what was up. As presaged by Herzl in his diary (1895):
We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.
The roots of the conflict run very deep indeed.
Here is a list:
"List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres...
Several things to note: That particular list starts in 1920, not because that's when Arabs began their nonsense but because it's a list of massacres in Mandatory Palestine and that started in 1918. The Muslim Arab massacre of Jews began literally at the beginning of Islam. But perhaps directly relevant, Arabs massacred Jews throughout the 1800s in spasms of violence in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, Aleppo, Cairo, Damascus and surrounds. The war against Jews in 1948 and all the accusations against Jews for "stealing land" was just a continuation of centuries of SOP.
Despite all of this violence, directed by Arabs towards Jews, thousands of Jewish deaths at the hands of Arabs in the preceding decades and centuries and millenia, you have to scroll down to 1939 before finding the first instance of Jewish retaliation.
As for "Zionists stole muh lands", here is a concise video that makes the case in under a minute that Jews stole no Arab land.
https://youtube.com/shorts/a3CNMHabxrE
> *You, after quoting a 1915 essay*: "The roots of the conflict run very deep indeed."
You wouldn't believe how deep.
There's also this fellow Menachem Begin and the accomplishments of his crew:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks#During_B...
This isn't a question of 1937 versus 1939 (or whether these atrocities were in any meaningful sense "retaliatory"). But if you're going to somehow not mention -- whether by choice, or simple carelessness -- one of the most important chapters of the lead-up to the so-called "defensive war" of 1947-1949 then I don't see us heading towards a productive analysis of the larger historical context.
Wikipedia is pretty good, overall. But uneven also, in terms of edit quality. So when assembling data on such large scale tragedies (as the matter of targeted violence against civilians by both sides in this conflict), it's best to check against other sources.
Like moldy old books in the library. And listening to people whose families have lived through these events.
Against a guy's essay ...
The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings. Not the guy or his essay.
You have decided this 2 years difference allows you to entirely dismiss the significance of this being the first retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. I don't blame you. I wouldn't address it either if I were you. That it was in 1937 vs 1939 still entirely undermines your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil and Palestinians are their innocent victims. Why are you like this?
> The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings.
The guy had an opinion, for which he was bitterly criticised by other Zionists. What is with you?
It's not my thesis, and nothing I've written even remotely suggests that.
I never said that either.
In support, I offer the fact that the Irgun attack of 1937 cum 1939 was the first Jewish retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks.
You attempted to demonstrate that Zionism was the cause of today's conflict by excerpting a 1917 essay. I don't think this reasonably compares to the historical record which shows a long, long pattern of Arab violence and calumny against Jews going back centuries.
Your username implies that you value rationality. Great! Me too.
In general, after years of arguing about this with strangers on the internet, I have not ever once encountered an anti-Zionist who argues well and honestly by scrupulously steel-manning the pro-Israeli argument, employing the Principle of Charity, citing falsifiable evidence for assertions, acknowledging opponents' points rather than ghosting, avoiding logical fallacy, and so forth. After years of only ever hearing fallacious arguing of that sort, I strongly suspect that there is no foundation for the anti-Israel stance based in logic and rationality.
Is there? Can you meet that challenge? Can you address the challenge directly and honestly, steel-manning and then refuting that thesis?
So, directly: if the first Jewish attack on Arabs was in 1937 while, to be charitable, the "first" Arab attack on Jews of the region were over 100 years earlier in 1834 in Safed and Hebron, with many thereafter, then how can it be Zionism that caused Arabs to attack Jews? Isn't it more credible to say that Arabs attack Jews irrespective of Zionism? Rather, that "Zionism" is the excuse for attacks that would happen anyway? Moreover, isn't it possible that Zionism gained status and authority, not as a bigoted "settler-colonialist project" as you term it, but rather as a necessary defensive corrective against ongoing violent attacks, both in the region and abroad? As the kids say these days, where the lie?
You were attributing to me views which I haven't expressed. So a correction was provided, which was hopefully helpful to you. In any case it seems we've traded enough notes about historical bloodletting the topic of Zionism as such.
If you like you can tell us how you think should look on the ground -- in, say, about 20 years from now -- in your most optimistic (but realistically obtainable) scenario. Specifically with regard to (1) the final and borders of the State of Israel, (2) the status of the West Bank settlements (for those which do not end up on the Israeli side of the final borders), and (3) whether you see a need for any "population transfer" (as per the Decisive Plan or other proposals) in order to create conditions for a just and lasting peace.
If you want to. I'd just be curious.
But, no, while I think my ideal future for the region is a pipe dream that will never come about, I don't think the answer is actual genocide like population transfer.
Earlier you made assertions that Zionism is a settler-colonialist project and at least strongly implied that it was the cause of the conflict today. In light of the fact that continuous Arab attacks against Jews of the region began decades before Zionism, has it changed your mind at all about the cause of the conflict? Changed your calculation at least to a degree regarding Arab culpability?
I was already aware of the chronology. I've pretty much always seen the conflict as having multiple sources of causality, both in its origins and in its reasons continuing to this day -- with plenty of blame to go around to various parties on all sides.
Changed your calculation at least to a degree regarding Arab culpability?
That said I just don't believe in the idea collective blame, as applies to any ethnic or religious group. And certainly not going back centuries and millennia.
I do see it as an intrinsically modern conflict, and in essence -- the outcome of global and regional power interests. Ignorance, fear, hatred and the conscious actions of individuals at local levels certainly have their roles also. But in the bigger picture -- it's the larger geopolitical interests, and the decisions of persons at these levels which have exploited these factors, and brought us to where we are today.
> -- with plenty of blame to go around to various parties on all sides.
These two statements are contradictory and non-sequiturs. Apparently Arabs are not to be assigned collective blame for their attacks, while Israeli Jews receive full, collective blame.
No one talked about blame anyway, but the cause and effect of the historical pattern of Arabs killing Jews in the region.
> I've pretty much always seen the conflict as having multiple sources of causality, both in its origins and in its reasons continuing to this day
This is an evasion when the question became tough. Now it's about "multiple sources of causality" when it's clear it was not Zionism or settler-colonialism that caused Arabs to attack Jews.
You say "there is plenty of blame to go around", and yet every post of yours exclusively focuses on Israeli and Zionist culpability and Palestinian victimhood, and you seem unable to seriously entertain any mitigating arguments our evidence on behalf of Israel.
Disappointing.
I've never said or implied any such thing.
Collective blame and victimhood are your themes, not mine.
In order to argue against Israel, particularly that Israel is somehow deeply immoral, one must distort, deny and divert. There is no argument against the state of Israel that does not rely on this. Anyone who employs principles of rationality to the conflict will be pro-Israel.
When pressed or challenged too hard, an anti-Israeli will simply end the conversation and ghost.
Prove me wrong.
This seems like a leap of logic. I see there are only two possibilities for that to hold true.
a) There are no illegitimate states
b) Israel is unique and unquestionable
I don’t think (b) is worth discussing as such exceptionalism is at the base of all genocidal states, and are almost always illegitimate (I’ll make an exception for the Vatican)
And (a) is easily disproven with a simple look at history. There are plenty of illegitimate states throughout history. A recent example is Apartheid South Africa which got replaced by a democratic South Africa in 1994. A more blatant example is Rhodesia. Almost everybody questioned the legitimacy of Rhodesia, and any anti-Rhodesian argument was indeed rational. Rhodesia was funded as a racist, white-supremacist, ethno-state and as such had no right to exist. Most of the world agreed. Not even Israel recognized Rhodesia (despite militarily supporting the white ethno-fascist government).
Israel in its current form has not right to exist. Israel needs to either a) grant full sovereignty to Palestine, and either pay reparations or grant the right of return to the descendants of those displaced in the Nakba and following atrocities; or b) unite with Palestine under a single democratic government with equal rights of all citizens. It cannot exist as a Jewish ethno-national ethno-state, which subjugates Palestinians in a settler colonial fashion, and further antagonizes its neighbors who shelter Palestinian refugees with constant military incursions.
I would want someone else to tell me this on the (many) occasions where I've gone on tilt like this.
> This seems like a leap of logic.
a) There are no illegitimate states
b) Israel is unique and unquestionable
...<then non-sequiturs about South Africa and Rhodesia>
I am a Westerner. One of my core beliefs is that rationalism and logic leads to truth and correct action; conversely that irrationality and emotionalism leads to suffering and poor decisions. I'm not pro-Israel because I've chosen "team Israel, right or wrong". I'm pro-Israel because the pro-Israel arguments that I've heard are far more rational than pro-Palestinian arguments. I do seek out anti-Israel arguments, hoping to find something rational, but so far, nothing. Again, my goal is truth and correct action, not tribal chest-thumping.
Your arguments here did not hit the mark. I do not accept that South Africa or Rhodesia are appropriate comparisons, and therefore their inclusion was a non-sequitur.
Further, my null hypothesis is that Israel is an unremarkable state, not "unique and unquestionable". I therefore interpret Israel as doing only that which any Western nation would do in the same circumstances. Yours appears to be the obverse, that Israel is uniquely questionable. Maybe it is? You'd have to supply evidence or arguments compelling enough to match that thesis, for me to be convinced.
If you do want to earnestly go down this path of becoming the first to construct actually rational arguments against Israel, you won't be able to just throw around emotional shorthands like "apartheid", "Nakba", "settler-colonialist", etc. It's lazy emotionalism designed to stop rational thought. It will convince only those who are already convinced, but it's not a rational argument.
If you want to argue rationally and compellingly that Israel is "an apartheid state" then understand the strongest arguments against using that term, and dismantle those arguments. We pro-Israel peeps have heard all the accusations, but have never heard any considered, thoughtful, direct, courageous rebuttal of the "Israel is not apartheid, actually" arguments. Just more emotionalism.
I do bet that if you take the journey to understand the arguments for and the arguments against you will conclude that it's not appropriate in Israel's case. But! Maybe I'm wrong about that! Maybe you will come up with a really rational, dispassionate argument that Israel is an apartheid state and all rational people will be compelled to follow the truth, reluctantly or not.
Good luck. I honestly look forward to see what you come up with.
The Nakba is a historical event, which took place in Palestine 1947-1948. I was using it here to describe that even (or rather as a reference point), not as an emotional shorthand.
Settler Colonialism is a conduct done by a dominant power and against an indigenous population. Rhodesia was a settler colonial state, there is a historical agreement about that, and there was a contemporary agreement that that was bad, and in and of it self made Rhodesia an illegitimate state. I was using it as an emotional shorthand, but so did contemporaries, including at the UN when they encourage nations to never recognize such as state.
Your claim that I threw around these terms as lazy emotionalism is unfounded, I explained how they are relevant and how one can indeed criticize Israel using these terms. Israel may not be as bad as Rhodesia, but the term Settler colonialism, and ethno-state still apply. Israel was a Settler colonial enterprise, it was funded 76 years ago by mass displacements of an indigenous population in an event known as the Nakba. Israel is an ethno-state. It maintains a supremacy and domination of a single ethno-religious group over others. It encourages immigration of that single entho-religious group, while denying any rights to the indigenous population which they displaced.
I’ve argued elsewhere (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40346997) that Israel is an apartheid state, citing, among other, a legal argument used before the ICJ that Israel does indeed brake international humanitarian laws, specifically relating to the legal definition of Apartheid. You however refused to engage with that argument. Claiming that I wasn’t making any coherent arguments. The thing is, I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are. I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter, and there is an overwhelming concern among experts that Israel is indeed an apartheid state.
EDIT: As a case in point of how universal these criticisms of Israel are (a universality which must grant at least some legitimacy) the Wikipedia pages for both Settler Colonialism and Ethnocracy (redirected from ethno-state), have a substantial segments about how these terms can be described to Israel. Even Apartheid (South Africa) which is an article about Apartheid in South Africa (not the crime of Apartheid) has a couple of paragraphs dedicated to how Israel’s conduct against Palestinians can be described as Apartheid. Jimmy Carter even wrote a whole book about it.
You aren't making coherent arguments. For example, if you aren't aware that "the Nakba" is considered by pro-Israelis to be a myth, then you should, and you should know why.
I’m not making those arguments, legal experts are
"Legal experts" are as subject to bias as anyone.
I’m simply appealing to authority on the matter
Indeed. This is why I didn't address "your" arguments. You didn't make any. You appealed to authority, which is a logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
there is an overwhelming concern among experts...
One problem with appeal to authority is that you don't have to understand the argument. Just find the person arguing your preference, label them "expert" and I do the same, and then it's detached from any actual understanding.
So, summarize these legal experts arguments and demonstrate that you actually understand the argument.
And, frankly, you did not even understand that the document was an accusation. This fundamental error didn't give me confidence, to be honest.
This is, in itself, a myth.
They might talk around it, and attempt to dial down certain aspects, bemoan the "necessity", etc. But every serious person in Israel more or less acknowledges the basic historic reality of the Nakba these days.
In fact, far from denying the Nakba -- since Oct 7, some are now quite proud of what the Irgun and the Haganah accomplished in 1948-1949, and are openly issuing calls to take it up a notch.
Meet Likud MK Ariel Kallner for example (via WP):
Following Hamas’s attack on Israeli communities near Gaza, Kallner in October 2023 called for Israel to bring about a second Nakba. In a post on social media platform X, Kallner advocated for a "Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of ’48", calling for a "Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join."
Not to be outdone -- here's Former Internal Security Minister and Shin Bet director Avi Dichter (from the same party, natch):
Israeli security cabinet member and Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter (Likud) was asked in a news interview on Saturday whether the images of northern Gaza Strip residents evacuating south on the IDF’s orders are comparable to images of the Nakba. He replied: “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba. From an operational point of view, there is no way to wage a war – as the IDF seeks to do in Gaza – with masses between the tanks and the soldiers.”
When asked again whether this was the “Gaza Nakba”, Dichter – a member of the security cabinet and former Shin Bet director – said “Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end.”
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-12/ty-article/is...
“Yesterday I warned the Arab students, who are flying Palestine flags at universities: Remember 48. Remember our independence war and your Nakba, don’t stretch the rope too much. Ask your elders, your grandfathers and grandmothers and they will explain to you that in the end the Jews will awaken. They know how to defend themselves and the Jewish state. Don't stretch the rope too much.”
After a protest from a Palestinian lawmaker Aida Touma-Sliman, he shot back:
Listen, listen - if you don't calm down, we'll teach you a lesson that won't be forgotten
https://twitter.com/MiddleEastEye/status/1529484002595414019
Now, I’m actually not that smart, and I don’t know how to summarize arguments in a convincing manner. We have plenty of people that have done so already, Wikipedia does an excellent job for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid I guess that is also appealing to authority.
Not exactly what I said. I said you should understand why pro-Israelis consider it to be a myth. You don't have to agree, but at least understand the arguments. You say you're not smart, but if you're smart enough to argue one side, then you're smart enough to understand the best arguments of the other.
Though "How can you call the Nakba a myth?" is in the form of a question, I have enough experience in "debates" of this sort to know it would be a mistake to treat it as a question. "How can you call the Nakba a myth?" is not actually your earnest request for an exchange of views, is it. It's more of a rhetorical device to demonstrate disagreement, even disapproval.
Given that it's not an invitation to exchange views, were I to make the mistake of interpreting it as an actual question, and were then to take the time to answer, explain, link to sources, ask questions in return, would you not scoff, dismiss, divert, and not seek to absorb the actual argument, but look immediately for ways to "debunk" it? Some, worried about ideological taint, might even run off to find approved anti-Israel sources to find out how they "debunk" the argument.
Invariably, the quality of the rebuttal is not as important as its existence. You (and your co-interlocutor @racional) disapprove, and you are on Team Palestine, therefore it doesn't really matter what the Nakba myth arguments actually are, nor their rebuttal, because they aren't gonna be seriously considered anyway.
Again, disappointing, but unsurprising. Not sure how barking talking points at each other is helping at this point.
Let us all cheerfully agree to disagree. You can continue to believe that Israel is committing genocide, and I can continue to believe that the accusation is murderously cynical, callous and morally bankrupt.
If we were doing competitive debate, a tactic like building a hypothetical Nakba denier, and claiming I have to understand their point—despite denying the Nakba being obviously wrong—that tactic might work in competitive debate, but not here. I don’t care about people who deny a real historical event, and I don’t have to acknowledge them, let alone understand them. They are just wrong. If they exists, that changes nothing, except the number of misinformed and wrong people surrounding this issue.
This is not a competitive debate, but an internet forum aimed at tech workers and tech enthusiasts. My goal here is to inform people of the ongoing genocide (which is really sad that that is something we need to do in the 21st century) because there are tech workers contributing to the genocide. I entered this thread 10 days ago because you had been gish galloping common myths about the issue (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40269500) and I felt the need to correct some of them for a wider audience. Some of those myths were ridiculous and obviously wrong, such as Zionism being a dog whistle, and smearing Pro-palestinian protestors as Nazis. It was not hard to correct those. Why I continued the thread though, that is anybodies guess.
IF your goal is to win me in a debate, you have probably succeeded. Congratulations. But I’d like to remind you that there are real victims in the ongoing genocide. Real people, some of them are tech workers who may have an account here on HN. To them this is not a debate which seperates people into “our team” and the “other team”. To them this is a disaster, a tragedy. Out of respect to all the victims of the genocide, I’m not gonna “agree to disagree”. You were wrong on multiple points in your original post, and while these wrong points persist in the public dialog, there will be tech workers feeling OK about contributing their work into furthering the atrocities, which will result in even more of our comrades being murdered in the ongoing genocide.
No. You're goal is to misinform people with a dangerous, mean, and genocidal lie. Why you would do such an evil thing is an open question. That you and others like you shamelessly, smugly repeat this lie, even at your own expense, is deeply weird. Was it hatred, implanted during childhood? Religious indoctrination of some kind? It will remain a mystery to me why people like you hold such recalcitrant, unmitigated hate but it's very clearly there, and it's the same hatred that has caused actual genocide through the centuries. Something ugly, deep in your soul.
I hope you figure it out and uproot it someday. It can't be making you happy. Good luck.
The document I linked was a testimony relating to accusations made by the UN general assembly. You incorrectly stated I cited it as a judgement, but I did not. I did however cite an ICJ judgement (Case 131) later which ruled Israel’s border wall illegal under international law, which was cited in the accusations for more general human rights violations (A/RES/77/247).
I understand what I cited, and I stand by my words. I’m however not that smart, and perhaps I failed to convey the purpose of each document I cited. Sorry for that.