I get that this seems positive, and it could be, unless the thing they’re doing is purely performative, actively distracting from any steps they are still taking to support the genocide, since this is nothing but words. There are many explanations already here about how there is no actual meaningful action here, and that at this juncture, this move is, at best, a net neutral with no meaningful effect on the genocide and, at worst, a net negative, serving only to distract and pacify welling criticism of these governments for their complicity in the continuing genocide while the band plays on.

I’ll take “Risky Clicks” for 800, Alex.

E: Oh, yeah, I wasn’t suggesting that it was out of character, but that the proclivity to perform oral sex was not directly relevant to the fact that Grant is Bi.

OK, first, if we’re going to try calling out specific fallacies: that’s a slippery slope fallacy, and expecting remedial action and/or accountability does not automatically lead to Hammurabi’s Deathtrap.

As regards the behaviour of world powers in a way that is perfectly analogous to bullies, with stated intentions and past actions to use as guides, what, precisely, do you believe I have ascribed as far as personalities are concerned? I can list specific events which are analogous to every event in that narrative, from sykes-picot to the crusades, the holocaust to white phosphorus raining over Gaza. Also, whose argument are you suggesting I am strawmanning? Netanyahu with his government’s stated intent to “destroy” Gaza? These governments, who’ve been too busy jailing people for calling them out for genocide to actually give a shit about, you know, the genocide?!

Other than all of that, sure, what about this exemplifies “good faith” to you? This appears, to me, to be nothing more than Realpolitik, using this move as a way to try to convince their people to stop calling out their complicity in genocide, without actually doing anything to stop the genocide. Is there some actual commitment to action that this entails, or is it just words amounting to “we support the right of Palestinians to self govern, at some point in the hypothetical future where they continue to exist as a distinct people”. There is a difference between performative words and concrete action. If they intend to wash their hands of their deeds, then words are a shitty solvent at so late a juncture.

Good for him?

Consider: Alice, Bob and Charlie have been bullying Devin since he was in first grade. They mock him for the color of his skin and his religion. Worse, in second grade, they used to try to convert Devin by beating him to a bloody pulp. Whenever he tries to engage with the class, they say he’s immature, to the point where Bob and Charlie decided at the beginning of fifth grade to literally carve up their bullying schedule, so they could micromanage every aspect of Devin’s school life.

This bullying got a lot worse in secondary school, however, when the three bullies changed their attitude toward another student those three used to bully: Devin’s cousin Eli. They used to rough up Eli just like Devin, but one day in the fifth grade, one of the bullies’ other friends, Frank, went too far. Frank beat up Eli so badly that Eli got left with a permanent scar on his face. Alice and Bob had to literally drag Frank off of Eli, while Frank, in his fit of rage, took swings at them, too, and literally decked Charlie, since he was the first one to try to speak up against Frank’s wrath. Frank got punished, and actually ended up working to protect Eli a few times after that. So, when Eli came back from summer vacation with new muscles, still bearing that scar that marked his own trauma, Alice, Bob and Charlie actually took Eli into their clique. He was still their underling (can’t have too many ideas floating in his head), but now, Alice, Bob and Charlie don’t actively bully Devin as much. Worse, they’ve convinced Eli that he’s “better” than Devin, and Eli and Devin have never been close. In Devin’s weakness, Eli sees that old pain, and seeks to destroy that grim reflection of his own past. He’s better than that. Better than Devin.

So now, in secondary school, Devin is constantly terrorised by Eli, with Alice, Bob and Charlie cheerfully egging Eli on at every opportunity. Alice even hands Eli different weapons and suggests new pranks, while stepping in any time Devin gets too “uppity”.

Today, Eli went too far. Eli went to his cousin’s house next door, and he started livestreaming. He brought Alice, Bob and Charlie on the stream, and started beating up Devin. He trashed Devin’s house, with Alice, Bob and Charlie actively encouraging Eli out loud on the stream. Eli started looting his room. Then, he found Devin. Alice told Eli to pick up a metal lamp, and Eli knew what to do with it. A single crack to the side of the head was all it took to floor Devin. Then, Eli. Kept. Hitting. He’s been caving Devin’s skull in with his shoe for the last five minutes, occasionally taking a break to stomp on a finger or gouge an eye. Meanwhile, Alice, Bob and Charlie are in the comments, quieting anyone who dares suggest that this is wrong. They are immediately banning anyone who likens this to Frank’s attack, saying that these people must hate Eli.

It is already clear on the video stream that, if Devin even survives this, he will be permanently mangled. In his rage, Eli just knocked over a candle, and the curtains just caught fire.

After another 15 seconds, Bob and Charlie are telling Eli to stop. They’re calling out, saying that Devin’s a person too. They won’t go so far as to liken it to what Frank did to Eli, but they are now vocally suggesting that Eli is in Devin’s house. Of course, everyone knows that Eli is in Devin’s house. But maybe, if they say “Eli, wait, you’re in Devin’s house”, and slowly build up to more bold claims (“Devin has human rights”, “you’re hurting him”, and other similarly useless and performative claims at this late juncture), then maybe people will forget that Bob and Charlie have been terrorising Devin for his entire existence, and were actively supporting Eli’s rampage until ten seconds ago.

Would you say that Bob and Charlie are “doing the right thing” by acknowledging, on stream, that Eli shouldn’t be in Devin’s house? The one that’s actively on fire?

Are Bob and Charlie “making good steps toward a solution”?

Now, Ned has been watching this stream since the beginning, and has been in the same class as everyone since kindergarten. Ned suggested trying to call the cops when Eli first decked Devin, but Alice convinced Ned that it wasn’t serious enough. Ned wants to call the cops again now, and report Alice, Bob, Charlie and Eli for their roles in what is rapidly progressing towards Murder. But Bob and Charlie are saying things that are mildly positive about Devin. Would giving their names to the cops be “letting perfect be the enemy of good”?

Colours are a spectrum. That doesn’t stop two things from being the same hue/wavelength

Grant is bi…

See Adverse_Reaction’s comment. You’re missing the context.

This, except their friend is actually shooting your starving children, then bombing the hospital they’re being kept in.

I am not saying “there can be no advantage”. At every turn, I was asking you to explain the advantage which, let’s be clear, you have been attempting to do in good faith. I just want to understand more about whether this international law is actually enforceable in any meaningful time frame. Saying “I don’t see how this helps them in any meaningful way. Do you have some explanation that shows that it does?” is not an argument from ignorance, it is literally asking to be proven wrong. I am desperately trying to see literally anything other than a calculated move of realpolitik with the sole aim of getting their citizens to stop speaking out against their complicity in genocide.

I don’t disagree that there is a difference, but setting the bar at “isn’t actively saying, with public, official statements, that they support the extermination of the native population of Palestine” is just too low a bar for me. As I’ve said in another comment here, from my perspective, this is nothing but a bunch of bullies who’ve been kicking some kid, and now that one of the bullies has clearly done permanent damage, they’re all saying “hey bro, it’s just a joke, bro, are you okay, bro?” Not even trying to stop the other two bullies who are still actively curb-stomping the kid.

As the comic implies, it just seems like a publicity stunt, because doing this now doesn’t appear to have any actual value any longer, because I don’t see how recognising a government-in-exile is going to meaningfully help any part of the plight of the Palestinian people. This just seems like a pragmatic thing that they think will drum up public support, while not requiring them to actually do anything, because they know that any actual enforcement of international law against the war criminals would require the US’ cooperation, so they’re “safe” to make these too-little-too-late declarations of “support”.

Worse, they bundled it with the worse half of the USA (except for soul food).

As someone who is under the godforsaken Nazi regime of MAGA, I have rapidly come to terms with the fact that “illegal” things are only illegal if there is a force willing to enforce the law being broken. Is there such a force? I have heard nothing of it. Please suggest who, exactly, you think is going to actually enforce sanction and punishments for this “illegality”. If these declarations do, indeed, have the force of international law behind them, and represent a commitment by these countries to enforce these wondrous and miraculous laws they’ve been actively ignoring up until this point, then I shall immediately cede the point.

As far as “argument from ignorance” is concerned, I would appreciate some elaboration. Saying “Talk is cheap” is not an argument from ignorance.

Hmm, good point. Odd.

In case my point was unclear, this is no longer “them doing the right thing”. What, precisely, do you believe is the benefit of this action to the Palestinian people? This is a great way of drumming up public support without actually having to do anything. Is there actually any commitment here to action? Is there actually any real cost to doing this? Have these countries ceased funding Israel? Have they stepped up aid? Are they even acknowledging that it is a genocide?

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think I am. This is nothing but a publicity stunt, and until it’s backed up by real action, I refuse to perceive this as “doing the right thing”. This is nothing but a bunch of bullies who’ve been kicking some kid, and now that one of the bullies has clearly done permanent damage, they’re all saying “hey bro, it’s just a joke, bro, are you okay, bro?” Not even stopping the other two bullies who are still actively curb-stomping the kid. No. I don’t see this as “the right thing”.

Comparing the height of an ant to the width of a hair becomes rather meaningless when you’re trying to get through the second-storey window of a burning building. What you have given is the lowest possible bar, as the person they’re supposedly better than is actively suborning genocide.

You’re so right, because the “positive reinforcement” of “let’s make up for doing nothing about the Holocaust by letting Zionists do a bit of colonialist mass murder as a treat and recognising their state” has gone just so well these last eighty years. </s>

If recognising a government in exile is the best you can do in the face of an active genocide that YOU HELPED FUND, then NO, better to do nothing and JUST. STOP. DOING. THE. GENOCIDE.

“Out, damned spot! … What, will these hands ne’er be clean?”

It is RATHER FUCKING LATE. Sure, let’s put together anti-poaching laws for the White Rhino after it’s already extinct in the wild! Now, let’s find other ways to do precisely nothing of any meaningful value while being able to claim moral superiority and that “at least we eventually did something”. Now that the complete obliteration of any meaningful civilisation in the vast majority of occupied Palestine has been completed, and after god-knows-how-many thousands have died of starvation or just being shot like rabid dogs while trying to take the mangled bodies of their children to a hospital, or daring to try to pick up food. Recognising a state which is in exile is precisely as useful to actual Palestinian people as just watching and shrugging your shoulders. It’s just an attempt at performative retroactive unfucking.

Don’t forget the kickbacks that judges definitely aren’t getting on the back end to send more people to prison, not to mention the outright bribery these prisons are using to “lobby” politicians to expand and maintain mandatory minimums to keep the beds full. Also, they don’t just rent out the labour. The government literally pays them per-bed-filled.