France Rejects Genocide Accusations Against Israel in Gaza

France is worried "people" will look at their exploits in Africa more deeply if they don't.

Can we call them freedom fries again?

"To accuse the Jewish state of genocide is to cross a moral threshold." - France foreign minister, according to the article's first line.

What moral threshold, mr. foreign minister? Moral threshold that separates the western "right and responsibility" to invade, occupy, do mass massacres, out the people through genocide by both killing them by the thousands and destroying or stealing their cultural heritage, funneling all if their natural resources at dirt cheap prices to add to your own wealth? Hmm, maybe it isn't slavery when you just "outsource"it?

What moral threshold? Something like "Israel government can't be fascists because they are the ruling organization over a people that were put through Holocaust by our then-enemies-but-current-allies, so only we can form any narrative about them?"

Western democracies' hypocrisy on full display as usual. Defenders of the human rights, only when it is their people and when they comply with their hegemonic agenda.

So if my mother died from alcoholism, it would cross a moral threshold, if I got fired for drinking on my job as a school bus driver?

This is the best summary I could come up with:

France on Wednesday became the latest Western country to reject accusations that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, a charge that was recently brought before a United Nations court in The Hague.

South Africa has won praise at home and from other countries for challenging what they see as a Western-led global order that is biased toward Israel.

Israel was founded in the aftermath of the Nazi-led genocide of European Jewry, and Germany has rooted much of its post-Holocaust identity in the idea of supporting the Jewish state.

France, home to some of Europe’s largest Jewish and Muslim communities, has seen fierce debates over the conflict in Gaza, including within its top diplomatic ranks.

In November, a dozen French ambassadors in Middle East and North Africa countries expressed unease over Macron’s perceived pro-Israeli stance.

Mr. Séjourné shot back that “we don’t need any lessons from your party,” as France Unbowed has faced intense criticism for refusing to call Hamas a terrorist group.

The original article contains 522 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 68%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

You know? Honestly, genocide doesn't actually exactly fit with what Israel is doing. Mass murder of civilians, starvation, attacks on journalists and aid workers, denial of medical care, theft of people's homes and theft of their property... they're doing virtually every type of war crime, now including the use of chemical weapons apparently, but (edit: they're not literally trying to exterminate the Palestinians as a genotype I misunderstood genocide) they could claim without obviously being full of shit that they're not trying to destroy the nation of Palestine completely. I think they are trying to, but it's not as clear-as-day as lot of their crimes which are on video and in the present/past, instead of the future.

Almost any type of war crime case could have been mounted against them, and it would have been a more solid case at the ICJ. There wouldn't have been room for all this semantic wiggling in the press over whether it's actually genocide, or merely mass murder and war criminality.

It almost makes me think that there was some sort of deliberate effort to bring over-the-top charges that would leave that wiggle room, instead of more conservative charges. Prosecutors will sometimes do this when they want to kill a case without showing any appearance of other than a vigorous prosecution. You bring murder 1 when you can't prove it, and give the defense something to work with, instead of charging second-degree murder and having a slam dunk.

I have no reason to think they might have done that, but I do wonder about it.