Live coverage thread of the International Court of Justice and the case of South Africa vs. Israel.

  • Oliofizodos@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Expected and disappointing statement. This just backs the non-statement of saying Israel should “do what it can” to protect civilians. The simplest way to protect civilians is to order an immediate ceasefire. This will help Biden to continue supporting the genocidal campaign that Israel is conducting on the Palestinians, because nothing he says opposes the ICJ.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’d add, I’m not happy with the “yeah, come back in a month” phrasing. Israel could see that as “Oh, so as long as we finish this in a month…?”

      • Oliofizodos@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah absolutely, since their wording is so vague there’s not really a bar that they would need to meet.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          And at least one Israeli official’s response is patently offensive:

          "12m ago 08.10 EST

          Israel’s security minister responds to ICJ ruling by tweeting ‘Hague Shmague’

          Itamar Ben-Gvir has responded to the ICJ ruling by tweeting: “Hague Shmague”.

          The South African government said it welcomed the provisional measures the ICJ had ordered against Israel."

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Israel is not genocidal, and this trial result supports that.

      Ordering an immediate ceasefire would be the world binding Israel’s hands, preventing the nation from defending itself against Hamas before Israel achieves meaningful security goals.

      The simplest way to protect civilians is for Hamas to return the hostages and immediately end the war, the next best way is to let Israel take out the terrorist government that keeps instigating violence and attacking theirs.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        10 months ago

        Israel is not genocidal

        That is absolutely NOT the ruling of this court.

        "Judge Donoghue says the court has decided that Israel must “take all measures within its its power” to prevent all acts within the scope of the genocide convention.

        She adds that Israel must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the act in the genocide convention."

        Since Israel is the only force attacking Palestinians, the order to prevent all acts under the genocide convention “with immediate effect” means that the court IS in fact recognizing Israel is committing genocidal acts against the Palestinian people and that they, and they alone, have the obligation to stop it.

        • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          If a court ordered you to “ensure you must with immediate effect dispose of any and all illegal drugs in your possession”. This doesn’t mean you have them, only that if you do you have to get rid of them.

          The same applies here, they must make sure genocide isn’t happening, not stop their ongoing genocide.

          Palestine is really winning hearts but not so much minds in the information side of this war.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            10 months ago

            When a court orders you to reverse an action, it’s a recognition that you are currently engaging in that action.

            So when this court ruled “that its (Israels) forces do not commit any of the act in the genocide convention.”

            They are stating that Israeli forces are, in fact, committing acts covered under the genocide convention.

            If they weren’t, there would be no need for the court order.

            Now, Israel’s defense could be that any genocidal action is the act of individual soldiers or units and is not official Israeli policy… I don’t BUY that, but it’s plausible deniability.

            In this case, now, the court is saying Israel has an obligation to stop it regardless of who ordered it.

            • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              10 months ago

              I don’t read it the same way you do.

              I read it as in your way to school tomorrow make sure you don’t play in the road.

              During your invasion of Palestine ensure you don’t commit any of the acts outlined here

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                10 months ago

                The problem with that reading is we already know Israel is on the wrong side of the genocide convention (bolding mine):

                https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

                "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

                a. Killing members of the group;
                b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
                c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

                d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
                e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

                Israel is already engaging in A, B, and C. So it’s not a matter of telling them to not do something they are currently not doing.

      • Oliofizodos@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The trial supports the opposite of what this comment is indicating. The role of the ICJ is to determine whether Israel’s alleged actions are capable of being covered by the Genocide Convention. Today they decided that this is indeed the case and the measures they announced, as meager as they are, are legally binding. A final decision will be probably only made in a couple of years.

      • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        10 months ago

        We don’t expect Hamas to do anything good because they are terrorists.

        We used to expect Israel to do good things because they used to not be terrorists.

      • jorge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

        from defending itself against Hamas before Israel achieves meaningful security goals

        Please explain to me, in what world “defending against Hamas” (which are islamist terrorists) and “achieving meaningful security goals” includes bombing a Greek Orthodox Christian church?

        • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          They always answer the same. It had Hamas in it. Or under it. Behind every dead child and woman is a member of Hamas. All 26,000 of them.