This includes countries that have ethnically cleansed their Jews, and countries that do not allow Jews to enter.
OTOH, why would anybody not be biased against an agressive, xenophobic theocracy bent on illegally occupying and annexing its neighbour, all the while whining that "they want to destroy us and deny the existence of the Israeli state", and then with the other side of their mouth "all Palestinians must die and their homeland belongs to us"? The mind boggles.
> many are officially against the very existence of Israel and have always been
Here we go.
> and they happily vote on any condemnation of Israel regardless of what Israel does.
Israel following up on their promise and actually applying the treaties they signed never got them any condemnation. Them doing the exact opposite obviously does.
> This includes countries that have ethnically cleansed their Jews, and countries that do not allow Jews to enter.
Someone being oppressed does not justify them then oppressing others. I can’t believe this still needs to be said.
That’s not the point. A country that has a history of hatred against a group, to the point of ethnic cleansing, and has not changed on the matter, has no legitimacy in critisizing or making judgments on that group.
I think this would be obvious in any other context.
The litmus test is if they were just opposed to the policies of the South African government, or did those countries also hate South Africa and South Africans?
Did they have a history of persecution of South Africans in their own country?
Were they funding armed groups to attack South Africa?
Did they believe that South Africa has no right to exist anyway?
> Ah but what about many many decades ago in history the minority ruling the apartheid state were treated badly! In other places! Did you think of that?
The only relevant litmus test is:
"Did the accused party commit the offense they are accused of?"
...everything else is whataboutism, red herring, ad hominem, and DARVO.
If the worlds worst person says 2+2=4, you still can't evaluate that claim by testing how many people like or hate the person. Only by whether the content of their words is true or false.
Is Israel an apartheid state? of course not; 25% of its population are Arabs who enjoy equal rights by the law (in comparison, 0% of Saudi Arabians are Jewish).
Is Israel a "rogue nuclear state"? It is a nuclear state, but so are France and Britain. What makes it anymore rogue than them?
Does Israel have "an history of terrorism"? You'll need to expand this one as I'm not sure what is the terrorism you mean.
Is Israel "carrying out a genocide"? Well the number of people in Gaza increased during the war. Don't believe me, hear out Hamas leaders [0].
Israel is in a tough neighborhood. Never before has any country faced such a campaign of ongoing hostility and delegitimization from its neighbors and far away countries alike. Israel is doing very well though.
The fact that Israel refuses inspections, something that no other country on Earth is permitted to do.
> Well the number of people in Gaza increased during the war.
This is just absurd holocaust denial. Israel has murdered almost 400,000 under the age of five https://x.com/i/status/1968772985227010398
[0] https://x.com/arikouts/status/1968935650263978009/photo/1
"regardless of what Israel does" they haven't tried ending the occupation yet; do you really think they would be condemned for doing so?
> and countries that do not allow Jews to enter.
Which countries are these exactly?
Next came Hamas, then the rockets, then the incursions and finally October 7th.
This is misinformation. Although Israel did pull its settlers from most of Gaza in 2005, it retained air, sea, and land border control. That is still a military occupation. The reality is, Israel never ended the occupation in Gaza.
While Israel retained air and sea passage control, the blockade as we know it only came after Hamas was elected as the Gaza government and not before.
(this is the opportunity to note that after the Israeli pullout from Gaza, Gazans could have chosen many different paths but they chose Hamas to lead them into the catastrophe they've become)
> this is the opportunity to note that after the Israeli pullout from Gaza, Gazans could have chosen many different paths but they chose Hamas to lead them into the catastrophe they've become
Even in 2005, after Israel's removal of their settlers and before Hamas came to power in 2007, Israel was still occupying Gaza, according to an ICJ ruling, based on Israel continuing to exert control over Gaza.
That's not what the court said. Its language was
> In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.
As it often does, the court used intentionally ambiguous language to try to get a majority of judges on board. But the most natural reading seems to be a novel idea that occupation is non-binary, and Gaza lies somewhere on a spectrum of being occupied or not.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186...