• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wow, magnificent self-own by the Orchestra manager. Dedicated to journalists killed in Gaza - not Palestinians or Israelis or Hamas or the Israeli far right or IDF, but journalists in the broadest sense of the term. Who fucking cancels a show over that?

      • xhrit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        slaughtering everything in Gaza

        Bro, the us killed more innocent people in 1 night of bombing in ww2 then israel has killed in it’s entire 75 year existence.

        The life expectancy in gaza is currently higher then in egypt, where Israel is not slaughtering anyone at all. At the current rate of death it will take Israel more then 1000 years to kill everyone in gaza.

        • sandbox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          So you’re saying that Israel’s genocide is fine because it hasn’t caused as much loss of life as a nuclear bomb?

          It’s a fucking wonder to me how you believe that the fucking life expectancy data is going to be anywhere near up to date or verifiable, considering that Israel have killed like three years worth of the yearly death rate in 9 months.

          • xhrit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            There were multiple conventional non-nuclear bombings during world war 2 that caused more deaths in one night then in the entire 75 year conflict. For example, the bombing of Tokyo which used conventional weapons.

            • sandbox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m not sure what your point is, here. If the bombing was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a bombing campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?

              I would also consider those acts of bombing to be absolutely unjustified, evil, crimes against humanity and wholly deplorable. I’ve even spoken out against the bombings of civilians on this very account.

              • xhrit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                In order to consider it genocide I would say there has to be a risk of actually finishing genocide.

                Do you consider palestine’s attack against civilians on oct 7th genocide?

                If the attack against the music festival was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a murder campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?

                • sandbox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Uh, sorry, I didn’t realise we could just come up with our own “considerations” of words with meanings which are widely acknowledged under international law.

                  Here’s the basic criteria: State killing, maiming, attempted reduction of the birth rate, forcibly transferring children, or inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.

                  For the October 7 attacks to be acknowledged as a genocide, firstly, the State of Palestine would need to be acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country. Then we could discuss what the potential intent of the attacks were, but I don’t think that it would be a stretch to consider Hamas a genocidal organisation, or to consider the October 7 attacks genocidal in that case. These attacks, no matter how deplorable, do not justify genocide as a response.

                  Are you willing to acknowledge Israel as genocidal under the same framework?

                  • xhrit@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    the State of Palestine would need to be acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country.

                    The State of Palestine is acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country, by 145 states - more nations recognize Palestine then Taiwan.

                    If October 7 was indeed a genocidal attack (as it clearly was under international law) then the israel’s actions are not genocide, they are a response to genocide, as the intent of the Israel-Hamas war is not the destruction of palestine but the destruction of the genocidal organisation Hamas.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      It wasn’t actually that broad, he specifically mentioned that Israeli armed forces have targeted and killed journalists in Gaza.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Which is a actual true comment. Isn’t an opinion, it’s a statement of fact.

        What sort of brain dead organization cancel somebody over the statement of a fact?

        • Ilandar@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          One that is concerned about a public backlash. I’m not sure if you’re from Australia, but the community is very divided here over this issue. It’s also an issue that tends to be divided by age groups, with older people being more likely to support Israel’s actions or see criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. Classical concert audiences tend to be quite old. With this context in mind, I suspect the MSO received a handful of complaints and incorrectly assumed this position would be less inflammatory. It’s possible that it actually is within their immediate audience, but the problem with making a big public statement like they’ve done is that it automatically puts you on a "side’ in this heated and highly polarised environment.

          They should have just spoken to the soloist privately and explained their concerns to him prior to the next concert, instead of turning it into a big controversy. As triggered as some people may have been by the introduction, it wouldn’t have been enough to turn this into a real controversy the way it has become since they cancelled the concert. Like this news story is not actually anywhere near important enough to make World News communities and get outraged replies from foreigners who had never even heard of the MSO before this. It’s the story’s connection to the situation in Gaza that is the big issue here, and deliberately involving themselves in that was a massive PR mistake.

          • Aussieiuszko@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            but the community is very divided here over this issue

            Noo it’s not mate, this isn’t America. The government supports Israel, but the people clearly favour Palestine.