When the story of the Israeli genocide of Palestinians is told, it will tell the story of how it cut electricity, food and water from the “human animals” and how Israelis mocked the starving thirsty children with videos of running water taps and lit lightbulbs 🧵
It will tell the story of how Israel used unreliable technology and massive collateral damage - bombs “focused on destruction, not accuracy” - to bomb sleeping children next to their sleeping parents, accused by some algorithm of being Hamas
It will tell how families were forced to flee their refuges once, twice, three even four times, fleeing due to evacuation orders that made no arrangements for them and pushed them into areas that were then bombed by the IDF in a perverse theatricality of insincere “humanity”
It will show how doctors, ambulances, humanitarians, journalists, civil defence, were killed, sometimes executed, kidnapped or disappeared with impunity. It will talk of Hind Rajab. It will tell all the stories.
It will show the stories of soldiers justifying the murder of children, claiming today’s enemies are the children they did not kill a decade prior. It will show them looting and mockingly wearing the underwear of the women they killed or displaced
It will show how vast areas of Gaza, universities, hospitals, mosques, houses - the lifelines of civilian life - were systematically destroyed in controlled explosions to create a “buffer zone” and push people inward, closer and closer together, so they could be controlled
It will show the videos of Palestinians fleeing through invisible death zones where anyone is marked as a target. Palestinians with white flags, elderly women, even Israeli hostages, all killed because they crossed an invisible line in the sand
It will tell how once enough people where crammed in a tiny portion of the Strip, and against the express order of the ICJ, Israel launched a brutal assault in these overcrowded streets, inevitably leading to mass casualties
It will tell how people where then told to return north, and how Palestinians marched proudly back to their destroyed homes, seeking to rebuild, only to then be trapped there by yet another blockade of food and water
It will then tell the story of how Israel sabotage aid delivery and replaced it with a system of mass displacement and extermination masked as aid delivery. How Palestinians were told if they wanted food they’d need to walk the death zones once more and go south or starve
It will tell how starving Palestinians were not given baby formula or blankets. How they were given uncooked food and no means to cook it. And how the efforts to break the blockade to deliver this formula were met with force and mockery
It will tell the story of how Israel concentrated a starving population among 4 distribution sites and then when starving people rushed the sites, they were shot for acting “aggressively”
It will tell the story of how Israel propped up gangs to repress this starving population and then used their actions as justification for opening fire. It will show how the people who got food were then displaced again, forced into ever-shrinking concentration areas
It will tell all these stories and many more that are still yet to pass. It will talk of the apartheid and occupation. It will tell the story of how it got to this. And those who enabled or supported it will never be forgiven
The story *will* be told. The depravity is simply too great. It will be told in the blood and the charred skin and muscles of dead Palestinians. It will be told in the unforgiving fury of those who survive this. The story *will* be told. And no lie will ever be good enough
And once the story is told, then you will have to run. Because you will be hunted. Because the crime is too great and accountability will chase you.
The story will be told and you will not be forgiven.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The nominal debate about sexual organs is a rather dumb one. You either think gender is assigned or innate and frankly that is of little consequence. The consequential discussion is why you think that: it’s either fragile masculinity or concern over safety in private spaces /1
IMO the latter is the only valid reason. I don’t care if a dude is scared that he will “accidentally” be attracted to a trans woman and hit on her. Deal with your own insecurities without trampling on other people’s rights. But safety in private spaces or fairness in sports? Sure
Here’s the thing though: safety and fairness are not “trans issues”. A fully cis male bathroom can be unsafe for a little boy (hi Catholic Church). Privacy concerns can be addressed with lockable personal booths. Transness is not the reason why private spaces can be unsafe
Piers Morgan approaches taxonomy as an ontological phenomenon. Categories are objective, universal and true. He never worries whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit, humans have perfectly taxonomized nature and categories never overlap. Hence he thinks this is a clever gotcha
The problem is @EdwardJDavey apparently agrees with him, but has to assume a pro trans position for political reasons. So he is confronted with an impossible problem: his categories are ontological, but his position is not. He cannot resolve the conflict and this is the result
Gender theory and feminism are not about ontological categories. Women are *not* ontologically (by the very fact of being women) the "weaker sex"; they don't "belong in the kitchen"; or "born to be mothers". This is why de Beauvoir said one is not “born a woman, but becomes one”
Unsurprisingly, Elliot’s conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the applicable law. The statement “inference to genocide requires that no other reasonable explanation exist” is… let’s say inexact.
The applicable test is not “can you *explain* what Israel is doing *as a whole* through any reasonable explanation other than genocide”, but rather whether intent to destroy can be reasonably inferred from a specific pattern of conduct
So saying “it is more reasonable to explain Israel’s actions as trying to destroy Hamas and save hostages, than commiting genocide” is not really what the test requires. What is the specific pattern of conduct that Elliot is examining here? None. He is making an abstract argument
This is what I call “legal vulturing”. Salo loiters above the text looking for anything he can slap a red underline and claim “he is the only one who noticed”. It’s bad faith work that deserves no serious engagement. So let me treat this like the piece of disinformation it is 🧵
Salo claims there is a secret paragraph 141 that scholars ignore on purpose to deny Israel a right to self defence. But article 141 is part of a subsection of the Opinion dealing specifically with self-defence. It goes from §138 to §142.
As Salo shows, in §139, the ICJ concludes that art. 51 of the UN Charter, which sets out the right of self defence, is not applicable to Israel’s actions in Palestine because
1) the threat it claims is not imputable to a state and article 51 only applies between states
So far I’ve seen the ongoing collapse of US hegemony as a protracted process of imperial decline, driven by a rally-to-the-flag retreat from the world known as “MAGA”. But now I’m wondering if that rally to the flag will actually lead to a much more violent and sudden process
The US has a heavily armed population which lacks access to mental healthcare and social safety nets. Increasingly, the random and senseless school shooting is being overshadowed by the targeted political assassination as the go-to “exhaust vent” of these social processes
Obviously, this is terrible. A Democratic representative, a healthcare CEO, a conservative commentator and the attempted assassination of the current president can’t be dismissed anymore as fluke accidents. Arguably, some are choosing to do this instead of mass shootings