Israel summons Argentina's ambassador over anti-Israel UNHRC vote


It takes two to tango. Argentina also had the option of abstaining like 14 other countries.
(regardless of the fact that tens of thousands of Argentine citizens live in Israel and are affected by hostilities, or the fact that Argentina is or was in discussions with Israel to further its own medical and economic interests.)

What worries me more is Argentina's U-turn on Venezuela and support of the dictatorship and ongoing human rights abuses there and in other countries in its own region. This undoubtedly has more of an impact on Argentines now and in future as well as the tens of thousands of Venezuelas who live in Argentina, most of whom have been negatively impacted by said dictatorship.

This kind of foreign policy further erodes Argentina's trust and credibility on the world stage at a time when the best thing to do for its own state of affairs would be to try and be a friend of everyone and avoid "choosing sides" on issues that do not directly affect it.
But we all know populism (like dictatorships or single-party regimes) anywhere in the world needs enemies more than it needs friends to survive, even if it's just an enemy you putear rather than punch in the face. Viva the (insert cause here) !
I don't think this is accurate, because the head of the commission and supporter of the measure is Michelle Bachelet who is one of the strongest anti-Maduro voices that there is. So this is much less about Venezuela, than a pragmatic vote with the majority which also included China (who's expected to buy around $2.5bn in pork from ARG this year) and Russia (who's providing millions of vaccines).

A pro-Israel vote isn't necessarily a morally superior position since Bibi has actively aligned himself with anti-democratic actors in the region like Bolsonaro and Guatemala's Alejandro Giammattei.


Let's just say that Argentina has a bit of problematic history with Israel / Jewish people, starting with the Nazi immigrants that were brought in by Peron after WWII, blowing up the Israeli embassy and of course the AMIA desaster


I have mixed reactions to this. Argentina's vote was morally correct, in my opinion, but supporting the Zionists would have been more advantageous in a purely pragmatic sense. Especially if that support could have been leveraged into some material support with the IMF, for example. Being a friend to Israel can be profitable, and being an enemy to Israel can be damn dangerous.

I know you meant this scornfully, but there is nonetheless truth in it. Argebtina is poor and financially desperate
Rarely has being an enemy to Jews been bad in any way.
Our era is a bit better than most of the preceding ones, but a lot of the old hatreds still hold.

To single out Israel for a resolution like this is morally bankrupt. Nobody disputes that a civilian death - every civilian death - is a tragedy. But the blame for the plight of Gazans rests entirely with the rulers there. No society, anywhere, can tolerate 4000 rockets being rained down on its cities.

Imagine if rockets were raining by the hundred on the streets of Buenos Aires from Colonia or La Plata. Just imagine it for a second. If the Argentine government and military would allow it to continue, they would be criminally negligent in their duties. The first responsibility of any government and any military is to protect its people’s lives.

If the people firing these rockets would be doing so in a manner appropriate to the rules of armed combat, that would be one thing. But as has been documented ad infinitum, and confirmed every time by the absurdly biased investigating commissions, the Hamas people deliberately put their rocket launchers and weapons depots in places where taking them out carries a civilian cost. The cynical intention is to force Israel to choose between letting Hamas continue shelling innocents, or take the steps it must to defend its people - at a tragic human cost, and with the inevitably slanted headlines that result the next day. That Israel takes all steps possible to minimize casualties - notifying of an impending attack using leaflets, phone calls, and “knock-knock” bombs - is conveniently ignored.

That any of the above is remotely in dispute shows the house of mirrors we are in the moment that Israel is concerned. The most common responses are a) that it is Hamas’s right to engage in terrorism, because its people is occupied; b) that Israel is much stronger militarily than Hamas, and therefore something something; c) that all of Israel is a colonial settler apartheid state and so their people need not be defended; (d) that lots more Gazans die than Israelis.

These are all nonsense. (a) is nonsense for several reasons, not least because it reverses cause and effect. The Arab aggression against the region’s Jews predates the occupation as well as the state of Israel itself. The completely unarmed Jewish community of Hebron, a centuries-old community, was massacred in 1929; this was no isolated incident. And all the territories in question were captured by Jews in defensive wars, before which there was no occupation at all yet the Jews were still in existential danger.
(b) and (d) are varying forms of the same nonsense. If you’re shooting at me and my children, the fact that my gun is WAY bigger than yours is irrelevant. It is my right and duty to use it. And if you hide behind your own kids while shooting at mine, that does not remove my right and duty to defend mine. It makes you a double monster. But I will still shoot back at you.
(c) simply muddies the waters with words fashionable among the left and NAM to obscure the fairly clear-cut situation here.

Syria and Russia deliberately bombed hospitals, in a war where no side posed an existential threat to the other. But we’re talking about Israel. Why? We know why.


@ben's post

You can add 'Israel is massively funded by the US' while they ignore that Hamas is funded and guided by Iran which simply does not want Israel to exist.


As politely and respectfuly as possible, I would suggest that we drop this subject now. Ben has eloquently presented the rebuttal, at length. Now let's stop. There's no way that arguing this out in this venue is going to end well. And we've ventured well beyond any relevance to Argentina.


As politely and respectfuly as possible, I would suggest that we drop this subject now. Ben has eloquently presented the rebuttal, at length. Now let's stop. There's no way that arguing this out in this venue is going to end well. And we've ventured well beyond any relevance to Argentina.
Without objection.