Jon Stewart weighs in on the war in Gaza and offers up a solution for ending the conflict.
I can’t believe I used to regularly watch television programming with all the clapping and cheering and whooping and laughing and awwwwwing etc.
This would have been much better with just JS speaking into a camera. Playing up for laughs really takes away some of the punch of his points. METO is an unironically good idea on the face of it.
The Problem With Jon Stewart had much more biting commentary, and you could see that he and his writers had much more creative control to speak their mind. The Daily Show just doesn’t have the same bite, or the same wit, or the same strength of conviction.
The Problem gave me emotional whiplash as the tone constantly went from serious to comedy and back again.
It was entertaining and it wasn’t overly biased, I’ll give him props for a solid segment. But the first time I saw this shared it was presented as if he had some new enlightened view. It was mostly jokes followed by a recommended resolution that isn’t going to happen. He did what I expected from him.
I thought he presented a clever solution that could work if the political will were mustered. However, that’s assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel.
that’s assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel
For this statement to be valid it would be required that the concerned parties are equal. In the case of the Israel and Palestine there is a power imbalance. On one hand there is the zionist settler colonial power of Israel that is one of the strongest military forces in the world. One the other hand you have Palestine that is not even recognized as a country by the colonizers and instead of borders the colonizer has raised a wall controlling amongst other things the few entrances.
Calling out Israel for its settler colonial policies is no synonym to vilifying it.
It’s more than “calling them out” when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel with intent to destroy it and genocided and ethnically cleansed Jews from Jerusalem and the West Bank while they were at it, providing justification for the very annexations they claim is a major cause of all this violence and refusal of diplomacy. Or, how Egypt pretends to be concerned for Gazans while not letting them out.
It’s more than “calling them out” when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel (…)
I was not talking about Arab people, I don’t know where you got that from.
Also before the Arab league invaded Israel, (debatable but not our topic) Israel had to be created as a country. If Israel has the right to exist in West Asia, there are no valid arguments on why Palestine should not have that right as well. Are there?
For the apartheid in South Africa to end, both colonizers and colonized worked together for some sort of solution. Palestine has recognized Israel as part of the Oslo agreement. As long as Israel is not recognizing Palestine, no solution can be implemented, and the Genocide will continue.
Well, that was what Jon Stewart’s plan was, to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel and guarantee safety for both. That’s what I was talking about.
Keep using the term genocide incorrectly and it will soon be meaningless. It doesn’t mean a lot of civilians died from collateral damage, it means intentional extermination/destruction of a protected group, which is not happening.
to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel
Let’s say that this is what he’s saying. I don’t see you mentioning what Israel has to do, so this reading cannot not be a solution cause it leaves out the responsibilities of Israel. What would you put on the top of the list of what Israel has to do? My answer to that would be that Israel has to stop bombing and starving, civilians and children, as well as recognize Palestine.
On Genocide, Israel is doing at least 3 of the 5 required for one to be called as such. And ICJ court said “plausible” so far.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.You’re ignoring that first part, without which every military action would qualify under that statute:
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
Israel’s started intent is to destroy Hamas, which is none of those protected groups.
Plausible does not mean probable. The ICJ didn’t order a cease fire, which would be odd if this was in fact a genocide.
I’m not sure we should expect new or enlightened views on this issue. Everything seems pretty clear from a facts standpoint.
