Not just Israel, all the countries that defunded the humanitarian aid.
The article at least mentions that even though the order didn’t demand ceasefire, it practically did very explicitly:
The State of Israel shall … desist from the commission of any and all
acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group
Many western media had the headline “no ceasefire ordered” which made the order sound like it was nothing. The western media too is complicit in atrocity.
I think many of the people in Palestine felt betrayed that they did not use the words cease fire. When faced with this existential crisis, nothing less is acceptable.
The icj used language that practically meant cease fire, but mid east news expressed disappointment.
So I guess the point I’m trying to make is that you’re admonishing “Western” media, but if that was the perspective you heard - No cease fire was called for - it probably accurately represents the sentiment of many of the people there.
The South Africans understood what the icj said, and their comments immediately following the decision illustrated that.
You could be right but the way the media here works is that they do report the facts but bias them. The headline sets the tone, and how the article is written makes it more likely to come to one conclusion. So it would take much more work to make my point. But I’m pretty sure: Even if they do technically report the facts there is a huge bias to manipulate the population in the “free” press.
In this case something like “ooohh too bad the court didn’t give the arabs what they wanted poor guys!” while it really was a legal victory - the court specifically ordered them to stop killing of palestinians.
I can’t read newspapers without getting super angry lol
The court did not specifically order that. Luckily we have the order and you may read it for yourself. You don’t have to rely on the incorrect analysis of the person who said otherwise or this article, which paraphrased the order to make it sound as though it contained something which it did not contain. OP-above used an ellipses to omit a pretty crucial sentence of the order. It does not bar the killing of any Palestinians as the Guardian article and OP have implied with selective paraphrasing and omissions.
JustZ is right in this case, and I always disagree with them lol. They want Israel to stop doing genocidal actions, so inciting genocide, blocking humanitarian aid, the most genocide-like of the collective punishment stuff. But they didn’t go as far as to call for a ceasefire or anything like that. They went farther than the Zionists who were calling it a victory, but that doesn’t mean they went as far as some people on the left think they did.
Countries de-funded UNRWA because they had people on their payroll that participated in actual genocide on October 7.
Many countries have switched to providing aid through alternative channels.
Really Guterres should resign, because how can an investigation of the UNRWA be trusted when it’s in the best interests of the UN Secretary General to prove it didn’t happen to avoid responsibility?
At this point the UN is just becoming less and less of a factor in the conflict because of their failures in leadership. I mean trying to make excuses for October 7, then not even apologizing when there’s a valid complaint about it. The UN is failing at diplomacy 101. The UN failed to properly vet the people they have working for them. If people on the UN payroll committed genocide, how seriously can we take claims coming from the UN about genocide?
We really need the UN be a part of a potential future peace in Gaza, but the UN is continuously failing in every possible way in regards to Gaza. There needs to be serious changes at the UN. There’s a need for an impartial diplomatic organization in the world, and the UN in it’s current form simply isn’t capable of being that.
Honestly, what gives? The language you are quoting here is neither from the article nor from the ICJ order.
The ICJ order did not require Israel to take a single affirmative step other than to provide a status report on or before February 23rd, as this article mentions in the second paragraph.
As a lawyer that as read the order, it’s you that is misrepresenting it not “western media.”
The Court is also of the view that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent
and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the
Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to
enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the
adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the
preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of
the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
Tell me again how you’re a lawyer who read the order lol. But we’ve seen again and again how Israel operatives lie to justify their fascist regime and their genocide.
Yes the language in that first paragraph about the Genocide Convention was left out of the Guardian articl and the person above, who purported to quote the order, but at least used an ellipses to indicate the omission, unlike the Guardian.
This part of the order (P79) refers only to killings to which are barred under the Genocide Conventions, not the mere killing of any Palestinian, which is what OP, you, and the Guardian article falsely implied.
P79 is another good example. You’ve quoted it here presumably to argue that “see, Israel does have to take affirmative steps.” Here Israel must prosecute people for war crimes and incitement to genocide. Well, you’re ignoring the part of the order that finds Israel is already doing that, and they are.
80 and 81, same thing. Israel is already in compliance, at least that’s what they will argue and provide evidence of in their status report due to the ICJ on February 23.
E: If only down voting me could make your feelings about what’s in the order actually match the order.
Larmy omitted a key part of the sentence in paragraph 79, which is the paragraph the original news story was paraphrasing. Both Larmy and the Guardian’s omission gave a misleading impression that the ICJ ordered Israel not to kill any more Palestinians.
Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
The paraphrasing:
The State of Israel shall … desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group
It looks like the only difference here is changing “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of”, to “desist from the commission of”, which is fairly reasonable and doesn’t change the meaning, since “desist” alone can be taken to mean “refrain from” or “cease”.
So yes, I must be dense, because I still can’t see how your accusation of changing the language holds water. Also, it seems to be para. 78 we’re dealing with, not 79, whose subject is incitement.
Not just Israel, all the countries that defunded the humanitarian aid.
The article at least mentions that even though the order didn’t demand ceasefire, it practically did very explicitly:
Many western media had the headline “no ceasefire ordered” which made the order sound like it was nothing. The western media too is complicit in atrocity.
For the sake of profit they will light the spark that burns down the world and then blame us for forcing them to do it.
I think many of the people in Palestine felt betrayed that they did not use the words cease fire. When faced with this existential crisis, nothing less is acceptable.
The icj used language that practically meant cease fire, but mid east news expressed disappointment.
So I guess the point I’m trying to make is that you’re admonishing “Western” media, but if that was the perspective you heard - No cease fire was called for - it probably accurately represents the sentiment of many of the people there.
The South Africans understood what the icj said, and their comments immediately following the decision illustrated that.
You could be right but the way the media here works is that they do report the facts but bias them. The headline sets the tone, and how the article is written makes it more likely to come to one conclusion. So it would take much more work to make my point. But I’m pretty sure: Even if they do technically report the facts there is a huge bias to manipulate the population in the “free” press.
In this case something like “ooohh too bad the court didn’t give the arabs what they wanted poor guys!” while it really was a legal victory - the court specifically ordered them to stop killing of palestinians.
I can’t read newspapers without getting super angry lol
The court did not specifically order that. Luckily we have the order and you may read it for yourself. You don’t have to rely on the incorrect analysis of the person who said otherwise or this article, which paraphrased the order to make it sound as though it contained something which it did not contain. OP-above used an ellipses to omit a pretty crucial sentence of the order. It does not bar the killing of any Palestinians as the Guardian article and OP have implied with selective paraphrasing and omissions.
JustZ is right in this case, and I always disagree with them lol. They want Israel to stop doing genocidal actions, so inciting genocide, blocking humanitarian aid, the most genocide-like of the collective punishment stuff. But they didn’t go as far as to call for a ceasefire or anything like that. They went farther than the Zionists who were calling it a victory, but that doesn’t mean they went as far as some people on the left think they did.
Countries de-funded UNRWA because they had people on their payroll that participated in actual genocide on October 7.
Many countries have switched to providing aid through alternative channels.
Really Guterres should resign, because how can an investigation of the UNRWA be trusted when it’s in the best interests of the UN Secretary General to prove it didn’t happen to avoid responsibility?
At this point the UN is just becoming less and less of a factor in the conflict because of their failures in leadership. I mean trying to make excuses for October 7, then not even apologizing when there’s a valid complaint about it. The UN is failing at diplomacy 101. The UN failed to properly vet the people they have working for them. If people on the UN payroll committed genocide, how seriously can we take claims coming from the UN about genocide?
We really need the UN be a part of a potential future peace in Gaza, but the UN is continuously failing in every possible way in regards to Gaza. There needs to be serious changes at the UN. There’s a need for an impartial diplomatic organization in the world, and the UN in it’s current form simply isn’t capable of being that.
Why are you lying? There is zero evidence provided that any UNRWA member participated in the attack.
The “evidence” that was provided by israel was proven fake by Sky News and Channel4.
Honestly, what gives? The language you are quoting here is neither from the article nor from the ICJ order.
The ICJ order did not require Israel to take a single affirmative step other than to provide a status report on or before February 23rd, as this article mentions in the second paragraph.
As a lawyer that as read the order, it’s you that is misrepresenting it not “western media.”
Direct quote from: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
Tell me again how you’re a lawyer who read the order lol. But we’ve seen again and again how Israel operatives lie to justify their fascist regime and their genocide.
Yes the language in that first paragraph about the Genocide Convention was left out of the Guardian articl and the person above, who purported to quote the order, but at least used an ellipses to indicate the omission, unlike the Guardian.
This part of the order (P79) refers only to killings to which are barred under the Genocide Conventions, not the mere killing of any Palestinian, which is what OP, you, and the Guardian article falsely implied.
P79 is another good example. You’ve quoted it here presumably to argue that “see, Israel does have to take affirmative steps.” Here Israel must prosecute people for war crimes and incitement to genocide. Well, you’re ignoring the part of the order that finds Israel is already doing that, and they are.
80 and 81, same thing. Israel is already in compliance, at least that’s what they will argue and provide evidence of in their status report due to the ICJ on February 23.
E: If only down voting me could make your feelings about what’s in the order actually match the order.
You said:
u/LarmyofLone then quoted the order, showing that the language they used was exactly from the order.
Take the L, mate.
Are you dense?
Larmy omitted a key part of the sentence in paragraph 79, which is the paragraph the original news story was paraphrasing. Both Larmy and the Guardian’s omission gave a misleading impression that the ICJ ordered Israel not to kill any more Palestinians.
Obviously, that’s not what the order said.
The actual text:
The paraphrasing:
It looks like the only difference here is changing “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of”, to “desist from the commission of”, which is fairly reasonable and doesn’t change the meaning, since “desist” alone can be taken to mean “refrain from” or “cease”.
So yes, I must be dense, because I still can’t see how your accusation of changing the language holds water. Also, it seems to be para. 78 we’re dealing with, not 79, whose subject is incitement.
You’re still missing the key difference. Right, 78.
This is the language that was omitted:
Israel cannot kill Palestinians in violation of the Genocide Convention. No kidding?
That’s not the same as saying Israel cannot kill any Palestinians.
Then that’s what LarmyofLone said. “Within the scope of the convention.” Why can’t you back down mate? It’ll be good for you. We all make mistakes.