Many European countries have already shifted from full support of Israel. Sanctioning MPs, recognising Palestine for example.

The problem is while they can and should be doing more, it won't actually do much, because the USA provides far more to Israel than anyone else, both in the form of aid and in the form of arms sales. As a result they have actual leverage, but Trump likes Bibi's authoritarian streak.

They celebrated bombing nuclear sites by israel in iran which is a war crime. They didn't sanction israel itself. They have not a single settler orgs in the terrorist list . They are lying about stopping sending arms to israel, they are still buying israel militery tech that will be reinvested in the genocidal army of israel. Recognizing palestine with no defined borders while denying their right to a military to defend themselves for any future threat and with no security guarantees is meanless

You can keep pretending that the west and arab leader traitors are shifting but it's false it's a smoke screen and people who ain't getting fooled will keep exposing the hypocrisy.

All the arms and military tech that goes to israel should all be given to ukraine

They celebrated bombing nuclear sites by israel in iran which is a war crime.

Oh, really, can you link the ICC judgment on that? I don't think "celebrated" is the right word, either. Your mischaracterisation of the situation does you no credit.

You can keep pretending that the west and arab leader traitors are shifting but it’s false it’s a smoke screen and people who ain’t getting fooled will keep exposing the hypocrisy.

It is shifting. Sanctioning members of the Israeli cabinet is a very clear shift. Recognising Palestine - even within the limitations that you point out - is a shift.

You are seeing that the shift is small and saying that the shift doesn't exist. Come on - we can agree that it's not enough without pretending that it's not there.

All the arms and military tech that goes to israel should all be given to ukraine

Agreed.

Oh, really, can you link the ICC judgment on that? I don't think "celebrated" is the right word, either. Your mischaracterisation of the situation does you no credit.

Do you realize how dangerous it is to wait for the ICC and ICJ to make obvious judgments? ICJ declared a genocide in Bosnia only 12 years after the end of the genocide. Everybody knows Bush was a war criminal yet the ICC didn't call him one.

The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material is the convention that shows that it is a war crime. Even just with logic alone you would know it. Bombing them does incredible harm to people and the environment. When Russia did the same everybody rightfully condemned it and called it a war crime, they didn't wait for the ICC, it shows your double standard really well.

It is shifting. Sanctioning members of the Israeli cabinet is a very clear shift.

It's not a shift, it's just smoke screens. Only naive people like you believe otherwise. Those sanctions on individuals only made them increase settler terrorism. Smotrich’s response was more settlements. The settlements are built by the Israeli government and armed by them, so the sanctions should be on Israel itself.

If countries sell and buy arms from/to Israel then they are making a Palestinian state impossible, so how is recognition not a smoke screen used to fool people like you?

Israel already shows the intention to do its final solution, so Israel should be treated like Nazi Germany. Would you say sanctioning two ministers of Nazi Germany while having trade with Germany, buying and selling arms to/from them and no sanctions on Hitler would be tolerable and a proof of holding Germany accountable?

The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material is the convention that shows that it is a war crime.

Which article of the convention? Noting that the convention is specifically about "nuclear material used for peaceful purposes" which Israel and its allies, as we know, do not agree with in the case of Iran.

My comment about the ICC was tongue-in-cheek but with a serious point: determination of what is a war crime is often not cut-and-dry. Not everything Israel does is intentionally starving children.

When Russia did the same everybody rightfully condemned it and called it a war crime, they didn’t wait for the ICC, it shows your double standard really well.

As above, it was not fully serious. In the case of Russia, essentially everything it does in Ukraine is a war crime because everything it does is in furtherance of a war of aggression. This is actually somewhat different than Israel in Gaza, because international law is clear that responding militarily to a military attack (such as Oct 7th) is, in principle, justified. Therefore in Gaza we have to assess the proportionality of what Israel is doing in order to come to the conclusion that it's committing war crimes (or at least, we used to have to, before the turned it into a forever war and openly declared their intentions of ethnic cleansing).

Russia gets no such affordance; when it bombs another hospital we might ask, abstractly, whether it was intentional or accidental, but in a sense it doesn't matter: it's still illegal, because the whole invasion is illegal.

Would you say sanctioning two ministers of Nazi Germany while having trade with Germany, buying and selling arms to/from them and no sanctions on Hitler would be tolerable and a proof of holding Germany accountable?

I would say it is evidence of a shift.

It's just smoke screens

If it's "just smoke screens" why does Netanyahu scream "anti-semitism" every time another country announces one of these things? Why does he find it so intolerable if it makes no difference? The answer is obvious: it does make a difference, even if it's small. Calling these things "smoke screens" is conspiracy-theory talk. It shouldn't be surprising that countries with long ties to Israel - or hell, countries with a historic shame of anti-semitism - are slow to move. No, it's not enough, but denying it's anything is just... bizarre.

Which article of the convention? Noting that the convention is specifically about "nuclear material used for peaceful purposes" which Israel and its allies, as we know, do not agree with in the case of Iran.

If they don't have valid proofs than they shouldn't bomb or support bombing nuclear sites

International law is clear that responding militarily to a military attack (such as Oct 7th) is, in principle, justified.

International law is clear Israel has the obligation to end occupation unconditionally . The genocide is the opposite of that. The war would still be illegal even if it wasn't a genocide because it's an occupier attacking occupied people and because hamas offered the release of all hostages in exchange of Palestinians kidnapped by Israel in their jail .

You can check multiple UN statement, you will never see term like Hamas should be disarmed as a perquisite to ending occupation like this

news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1…

It's evidence of making weak actions that would have allowed Hitler to exterminate jews from Germany

If it's "just smoke screens" why does Netanyahu scream "antisemitism" every time another country announces one of these things?

I would say it is evidence of a shift.

If it's not smoke screens Israel would behave more not accelerate genocide. Zionists and war criminals like Netanyahu are he is a good actor. Israel love to act offended by everything while deep down they laugh about western countries , arab countries statements and naive people like you

Palestine: International law obliges Israel to end occupation, says rights panel

All States and international organizations, including the United Nations, have obligations under international law to bring to an end Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, according to a new legal position paper released F…

^{UN News}

If they don’t have valid proofs than they shouldn’t bomb or support bombing nuclear sites

So just to be clear, you don't have the relevant article of the convention to hand? I'm not an expert, but I did read a copy of it and couldn't find anything that refers to military strikes. I think you've just heard this somewhere and are repeating it, but it's not true - and, when challenged on it, you don't acknowledge it.

International law is clear Israel has the obligation to end occupation unconditionally

Israel's interference with Gaza and its continued occupation of parts of Palestine is not of the same magnitude as Russia's invasion and annexation of Ukraine due to history going back decades.

If it’s not smoke screens Israel would behave more not accelerate genocide.

This assumes that European countries actually have the leverage to make Netanyahu change course. They don't.

And you call me naive.

So just to be clear, you don't have the relevant article of the convention to hand?

iaea.org/publications/document…

The Amendment to the CPPNM significantly strengthens the original CPPNM in a number of important ways. It extends the scope of the original treaty to cover physical protection of nuclear facilities and nuclear material used for peaceful purposes in domestic use, storage and transport. It also further criminalizes offences related to illicit trafficking and sabotage of nuclear material or nuclear facilities, and it provides for strengthened international cooperation in light of the expanded scope, such as assistance and information sharing in the event of sabotage.

UN experts condemn Israeli attack on Iran and urge end to hostilities

Israel's interference with Gaza and its continued occupation of parts of Palestine is not of the same magnitude as Russia's invasion and annexation of Ukraine due to history going back decades.

It doesn't matter the different history and circumstances. All it matter is that Ukraine is occupied by Russia and Israel is occupying Palestine. Yet you make all kind of BS excuses to Israel.

This assumes that European countries actually have the leverage to make Netanyahu change course. They don't.

Another stupid excuse. Those countries signed the Geneva convention and the genocide convention they have the obligation to cut ties with Israel, the international law doesn't give a damn about the excuse "Oh, we couldn't do better so we can't be blamed".
Yes Europe has the power to heavy sanction Israel itself and stop selling them any kind of military equipment's and it's part

From the amended text of the Convention:

The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention,

This Convention shall not apply to nuclear material used or retained for military purposes or to a nuclear facility containing such material.

And this is why I stand by that tongue-in-cheek reference to the ICC. International Law is complex and your assertion that Israel broke it by striking Iran is worth nothing compared to the opinion of experts. Your quoting of them is noted.

Another stupid excuse.

You said that the actions were "smoke screen" because they hadn't caused Netanyahu to act. When I pointed out they don't have the power to make him act, you only say they are obliged to by international law. I agree that they are, but can we agree then that your assertion that Netanyahu's lack of response doesn't have any bearing on whether the actions of European leaders are, in fact, steps in the right direction?

The shirt was a pro-feminism message that's reportedly been used by groups in the past.

If you're religion is, unfortunately, tied to oppression of rights, then I give 0 fucks if someone makes a statement or shirt or whatever about those messages.

Don't shit on religious people for their nice beliefs, like don't play thrash metal on blast in the parking lot of a bakesale for the church. But anythjng about it's messaging or reach or the negative aspects and I'm all game.

I detest how one-way these things are. I am morally outraged any time I see a street preacher, or cultists giving out copies of their literature to children, or cultists coming to my door to question my beliefs. It's morally abhorrent, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm supposed to tolerate their batshit nonsense but they're allowed to do what they like? What makes their strongly held beliefs more important than mine?

I will stop criticizing them when they stop controlling and/or influencing the laws and politics in my country.

Until then, their irrational beliefs are fair game.