The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its Order yesterday (26 January 2024) on the South African case against Israel involving possible genocide in Gaza. Predictably, the coverage of the Order in the mainstream media in the West aims to spin the story in ways that are most favorable to Israel, which means minimizing or omitting those elements of the story that make Israel look bad and emphasizing that the ICJ did not order Israel to cease all military operations in Gaza.
I've seen stats that say Israel is doing an exceptional job of keeping civilian casualties down as urban warfare conducted in the fashion that Hamas does is extremely difficult to deal with. I do not have the expertise to evaluate those claims so I remain as in the dark as you are.
Those stats are nonsense. First, they rely on the idea that the 30 percent of the 25,000 who are not women and children are all Hamas. But that makes no sense. There are many thousands of uncounted corpses in the demolished buildings. Some are Hamas and some not. We have no way to know.
Second, you can read the article in 972 about how Israel chooses its “ power targets”. Basically any house or apartment building which has any connection with Hamas, like a low level Hamas member lives there, gets targeted. Notice they have also target churches. The result is that northern Gaza and much of the rest of Gaza is a moonscape.
They also began the war I:posing a complete blockade on all power and water and were forced to back down because not even Biden could defend that.
They are not trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible, but very few countries accused of genocide actually try to do that. They just have to make Gaza uninhabitable and claim it was all for legit military reasons.
They absolutely are killing as many people as possible. They will not stop until the Palestinians 'have left this earth'. Have you listened to the judge who cited the genocidal intentions of the Israeli leadership and have you not seen that those intentions are being carried out on the ground?
I agree that Israel is committing genocide, but no, they aren’t killing as many as possible. as fast as possible because they want some degree of plausible deniability so they can claim the deaths are collateral damage. They have dropped tens of thousands of tons of bombs — if they genuinely wanted to maximize the death toll as fast as possible the death toll would be many hundreds of thousands. It may reach that through disease and starvation. And that was the plan.
They are committing genocide but trying to do it with enough plausible deniability so that idiots can claim it is just a military campaign. They have a much better chance of accomplishing their ethnic cleansing preference by demolishing civilian infrastructure and making Gaza uninhabitable. Many Gazans might want to leave rather than watch their children die. In fact if you have followed this you will know Israeli officials have urged, on “ humanitarian” grounds, that Gazans be given assistance so they can all leave elsewhere.
And even that is something they have had to walk back, or so they claim, but the Israelis always work by establishing “ facts on the ground”. People will either have to live in tent cities indefinitely, with a massive mortality rate, or they will move. That was obviously the goal. And they didn’t have to kill as many as possible with bombs. They just have to kill some, and let the physical destruction of homes and infrastructure do the rest.
They're after plausible deniability? Their stated intent (and actions!) are and have been so blatant that even the American and Jewish judges voted in favour of 'plausible' genocide and will investigate - which was the purpose of the case.
They most certainly are trying to kill as many Palestinians as fast as possible and hoping starvation and disease will do the rest. Any comparison of bombs dropped and deaths, particularly children, and this genocide by Israel outranks other conflicts in modern history in terms of numbers, both bombs and bodies in the period of time.
Several things can be true at the same time. Gaza is the most brutal bombing campaign in decades, but they could have killed far more with tens of thousands of bombs if they chose to do so. If you think about this for ten seconds you know this. They could hit refugee camps and fleeing civilians out in the open— all of them. Rather than partially wrecking hospitals they could literally level them to the ground with everyone inside.
They don’t do this because it would be too obvious and even Biden couldn’t pretend it wasn’t happening. Instead they do as I described. It is genocide and ethnic cleansing and involves deliberate killing of civilians but they pretend it is collateral damage.
I am just going to mute this thread because I am tired of people who think precision in an argument doesn’t matter. The South Africans didn’t try to claim Israel was trying to kill as many Gazans as they could as fast as they could because it isn’t true and isn’t necessary to show a genocide is occurring.
Quite how, 'but they could have done worse' is an argument for anything is the question.
A partially wrecked hospital is as non-functional as one literally levelled.
They did hit refugee camps. They attacked buildings, facilities and areas where they knew civilians would be, nearly half of them children. Their evil bots sliced Gaza into areas and designated some as safe and the Israelis sent the Palestinian refugees into those areas and then bombed them.
If they were not trying to kill as many as possible as fast as possible they would NOT HAVE USED DUMB BOMBS and they would have allowed in food, water, medicine and humanitarian aid.
Sure, keep the genocide at a slower pace so we can disguise that we are killing as many Palestinians as fast as we can might be the modus operandi but actions speak louder than words.
You are splitting hairs. If the Israelis were not trying to kill as many Palestinians as they could as fast as they could then there would not be so many dead.
Of course that is not necessary to show a genocide is occurring but to deny it as a reality makes no sense.
I'm with you Jeff. It seems like a truly genocidal government wouldn't bother to evacuate people and declare safe zones and drop leaflets warning of airstrikes before they started bombing. Those seem like the actions of someone who is at least trying to get civilians out of the way, not someone actively trying to murder as many civilians as possible.
War sucks. People die. Civilians die. Especially when a guerilla force hides weapons in schools and hospitals. American bombs killed thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians for years. Were we genocidal?
However, setting that aside, your first paragraph unfortunately fails to persuade. You could apply exactly the same logic to demonstrate that Germany under Hitler couldn't possibly be genocidal - because of the expressly Zionist efforts made by the Chancellor, often against opposition from his party, to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine between 1933 and 1939 - after which, for obvious reasons, it became infeasible.
Ultimately we need to stop emoting and instead look at the legal classifications. Which the Court has done.
I think we need to evaluate the evidence we can for ourselves instead of relying on the judgement of grossly flawed institutions that have demonstrated their anti-Israel sentiment for decades.
The fog of war is very dense, especially this war. So many people pumping propaganda makes honest evaluation of claims very difficult. I wish we had a trustworthy, apolitical institution to help do that, but the UN Court is neither of those.
There is nothing dense or fogged about the level of slaughter and destruction. Nor is there anything dense about Israel actively targeting civilians with bombs and snipers, the latter shooting pregnant women in hospitals. Neither is there anything dense about images of Israeli Occupation Forces shooting and killing men and tossing their bodies into pits.
"
And there is certainly nothing dense or fogged about Israel refusing to allow in medical aid and children, toddlers, babies, adults having limbs amputated without anaesthetic. That Is Israel's choice. Starving the Palestinians is Israel's choice. Refusing them clean water is Israel's choice. Refusing them humanitarian aid is Israel's choice.
The only evacuation Israel has pursued is pushing 2.3 million Palestinians south with the hope of killing as many as possible and driving the rest into Egypt.
NONE of it is to save lives. With one of the earliest calls to go to the Rafah Crossing, Israel bombed them when they arrived.
They have a truly sick computerised system where robots invent safe zones, send the Palestinians to them and Israel then bombs them.
If Israel was trying to NOT kill civilians it would not have bombed every university, nearly every hospital, medical centres, schools and aid agencies. Actions speak louder than words and Israel's actions are and always have been ACTIVE GENOCIDE.
I would point you to the words of the great Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "the line between good and evil does not divide man from man but runs through every human heart."
You have convinced yourself of a binary: Palestinians good / Jews bad. Solzhenitsyn's point is that humans don't work like that. The world is far messier and complicated and ambiguous. Are there truly bad people? Absolutely. But they are incredibly rare )about as rare as saints.) We compare people to Hitler precisely because Hitler was such an outlier in human history. I know that moral ambiguity is hard for you to see on this issue, but consider that Solzhenitsyn spent 10 years in a Siberian gulag, so he knew something about the human nature and the depth of evil and goodness that was possible even in grossly flawed and broken people.
You may be right. It is possible that Israel is trying to murder as many Palestinians as possible. But there is evidence in both directions, and if you can't see that, you are too blinded by hatred.
Albert Einstein: "The most important aspect of our policy must be our ever-present, manifest desire to institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst … The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people. … What saddens me is less the fact that the Jews are not smart enough to understand this, but rather, that they are just not smart enough to want it.”
The ICJ ruling was "a black day for Israel" only because it underlined the contemptible religious bigotry forming the base of Israeli politics.
Norman Finkelstein: “The biggest insult to the memory of the holocaust is not denying it but using it as an excuse to commit genocide against the Palestinian people.”
To be fair, UNRWA did fire a dozen people for material participation in the Oct 7th attacks. (How material, I don't know.) But when you admit that you (accidently?) took funds that were for refugee relief and paid them to terrorists who murdered 1300 people, it's not unreasonable that those writing you checks might have some reticence to continue.
For those of you who think UNRWA was completely in the right to fund terrorism and that Israel deserves everything it gets (which is apparently most of you here), rest assured that the Kabuki theatre will be over soon, and the funds will be quietly restored with interest. The Western bureaucratic/NGO establishment always takes care of its own, even the ones who are genocidal terrorists.
"IsraeI’s Social Security Administration in mid-December released a complete list of those killed in the attack, with the circumstances of death of each.
That official document showed that 695 of the deaths were Israeli civilians, 373 were Israeli security forces, and 71 were foreigners, for a total of 1,139 victims." So 766 civilians. Who killed them?
Note the large number of IDF soldiers killed. This was a HUGH battle.; helicopters raking the scene with 30mm cannon fire. What about all the burnt out cars; there appear to be hundreds at the rave site. How would Hamas burn all these cars? How many people died in those cars? Also, in the middle of this melee, some Hamas supposedly took time out to rape women! Of course, none of the women released by Hamas reported any rapes. If there were, EVERYONE on Planet Earth would know by now.
You have body cameras, eye witnesses who were hiding under dead bodies, broken pelvises of executed young women (I'm sure those IDF helicopters took the time to shoot young women in the genitals.) If you won't see what's right in front of you, there's nothing that can be done for you.
The IDF may have problems. Israel may have problems. But nothing excuses what the Palestinians did. No amount of "occupation" makes the mass murder of teenagers at a rave acceptable.
Sadly, the bulk of NGO’s are operating on ideology in Gaza and are not serving the material and psychological well-being of the Palestinians. The largest per capita aid flows in the planet have been used to build a war machine. You cannot pour hundreds of billions of dollars of aid into a population of 3 million and all you have to show for it are an underground city, caches of bombs and weapons throughout civilian infrastructure, lucrative paycheques for terrorists and ideologically captured schools that teach your children to aim toward only one goal of killing Jews. This is not resistance, it’s an Islamic fascist state that is hell bent on sacrificing its population to establish its caliphate aims.
These children grow up knowing that there is a powerful army which regularly kills people like them with impunity. This army proudly tells the world that it is a JEWISH army. What do you expect these kids to think?
There is plausible evidence that the reaction was reasonable although I think UNRWA is the only way to provide aid to Gazans at this time. At some point in time, I might support a decision for US to end funding. I don't think the US will do this but it will require UNRWA to do a better job of screening applicants and they should.
Another classic case of collective punishment. You found a few bad apples in a barrel so you threw all away. You found some soldiers committing war crimes, so you punished the entire army.
But that’s ok, the motivation is clear. Hypocrisy is hard to disguise.
I want to continue providing funds in UNRWA and you call me a hypocrite? I just want to apply some pressure so they will do a better job. The ICJ did that in my opinion and I support their judgment too.
Is it not wonderful that you can express that opinion without fear? Say something similar in Gaza about Hamas and I cannot say with certainty that your life would be in danger but try getting others to try and change things, I think the odds of retribution are pretty high. In fact it would be a near certainty unless they consider you crazy.
Well, I fear my government but that's not good whataboutism. Let's stick with the fact that the USA's fight for world democracy is bullshit, and that it pretending to soften Israel's blows whilst supplying it weapons is contradictory.
Jeff, this is a great point. The "Queers for Palestine" signs have been hilarious for the same reason. Carry the same sign in Rafah and see what happens.
No; threaten it to make necessary changes. In the end, if having UNWRA employees who kill Iraeli's is necessary to feed Gaza's children I'd probably do it but it would not be the generous funding that has been provided in the past and now is rubble due to Hamas actions. Open-ended commitments are dangerous and we have done Gazans no favors by showering them with aid.
Is the "collective west" offering any alternative to UNRWA? They could if they wanted. Trouble is, genocide is bakeed into the ideology of Zionism since it advocates displacing one people for another in order to create a new state for the new population. Zionism is nothing but land theft dressed up in religious bric-a-brac. And the western governments are fully on board in support of Zionism.
I look forward to hearing John's thoughts on why the ICJ ruled this way. I, too, am amazed that a UN affiliated court would meaningfully rule against Israel on such a case, regardless of how solid the South African case was. Frankly, it lends direly needed legitimacy to international institutions, which of course those of us in the realist camp tend to dismiss as impotent puppets of the United States. It'll be very interesting to see how the ICJ measures are enforced...
The UN as a body has been anti-Israel for decades. The Assembly is so biased no one pays any attention to its resolutions. That's why the security council resolutions are the only thing anyone ever pays attention to. (That and the fact that the security council resolutions are backed up by the 800 lb gorilla -- us.) I don't think there's anything weird or symbolic in a "UN court" telling Israel they must let their enemies murder Jews without responding.
I feared that would be the result. The ruling gives the court a little more legitimacy in my mind although they ignored some precedent in reaching their decision. They just flat-out ignored the standard of proof they enunciated in the Myanmar decision. Courts do that sort of thing all the time and I suppose it is important in trying to get to justice.
Israel gets to continue the war against Hamas which is the important thing and maybe Israel can find a way of getting aid to children. I know it is rude to say but I do not think many of their parents deserve that aid but they'll get it and so will Hamas. It is like requiring that US and USSR be required to forward food through the lines to starving Berliners in WW2. It's a bad idea but I guess it is a necessary cost. to civilization.
Meanwhile Hamas will, of course, face no resolution or sanction from UN because, after-all, it is the Jews. Threw that last comment in to be rude; I'm not convinced it is true but it might be.
If it does not matter, why did Israel bother to defend itself in the ICJ? You should apply as an adviser to Netanyahu. The pro-palestinians would love you.
Then what is the point? A panel of a lawyers from a body with a 70 year track record of antisemitism has demonstrated it is against the Jewish state. Seriously, what does this actually matter?
I believe Israel has a great variety of mid-term problems. It may well not exist within 20 years. There's a viable possibility both it and its neighbors (especially Iran) will be radioactive slag. Next to that, 16 lawyers whining in Brussels is inconsequential.
It is NOT a Jewish state. It is a Zionist state. That is why Zionism is popular in the ranks of those who have historically been fonts of antisemitism, e.g., the "Christian" right.
The most interesting ruling was that South Africa had created the necessary dispute with Israel, a requirement for standing. That proof was a grey area, yet the judges used it as an excuse - lovely.
I had already read and liked that letter - everyone should.
By good timing, I was on Naked Capitalism now, where Yves said: "It was not all that far into President Donaghue’s reading of the ruling that it was clear the Court had not even slightly bought what Israel was selling. I was surprised to see the Court rely on an Israel FAQ from its Foreign Ministry as the basis for Israel having responded to South Africa. As we pointed out earlier, these sort of media communications are normally not considered to be formal responses. But perhaps in this era of intense narrative management, those boundaries may have shifted somewhat. But the noteworthy part was not the Court’s conclusion here but that it didn’t deign to dignify Israel’s attempt to dispute the dispute by mentioning its arguments, "
Courts often have to be brief. The majority ruling focused on what the Court considered the salient points.
I respectfully recommend that apart from the main judgment, which clearly explains the Court's majority reasoning, you also read the additional five (short!) judgments appended to the formal Order. i.e. at pp10-13 of https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf. Interestingly, three of them ("Declarations") are from judges who arguably wanted to go further than the majority; one is the dissenting opinion from the Ugandan judge; and the final one ("Separate Opinion") is from the Israeli Judge ad hoc Barak, who I thought made good points (including mention of some Israeli arguments) though ultimately I would side with the majority.
"A number of coalition politicians expressed opposition to Judge Barak’s appointment following the announcement, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who distanced himself from the decision Monday. “Putting the keys in the hands of Aharon Barak, who is an honorable man, is a mistake,” Smotrich told reporters ahead of his Religious Zionism party’s faction meeting in the Knesset. “This is a decision made by the prime minister without consulting us.”
"5. With regard to the Court’s prima facie jurisdiction, Judge ad hoc Barak is doubtful whether South Africa brought this dispute in good faith. After South Africa sent a Note Verbale to Israel on 21 December 2023, concerning the situation in Gaza, Israel replied with an offer to engage in consultations at the earliest possible opportunity. South Africa, instead of accepting this offer, which could have led to fruitful diplomatic talks, decided to institute proceedings against Israel before this Court. He regrets that Israel’s attempt to open a dialogue was met with the filing of an application."
I thought Professor Shaw for Israel was the best advocate in either hearing, but given the comprehensive undermining of his "no dispute" arguments by his own colleagues, he was in a pretty hopeless position.
In my view, Israel's optimal legal strategy and its optimal PR strategy were mutually contradictory, and in trying to have its cake and eat it too Israel paid the price of such hubris. ;)
For South Africa to have legal standing, to be allowed to submit to the ICJ, it first had to have declared a dispute with Israel over its actions. Only once unresolved, does it go to the ICJ. Normally the process would've been formal than it was.
"Excuse" was a poor choice of word because it would have to work either way. I don;t know the minds of the judges.
Ah ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, i heard some buzz about that. Werent the south africans saying that the israeli lack of response to their 84-page document was cause to go to the ICJ?
Yes, John may have some interesting thoughts: but remember, he says all IR theories are simplifications and so if he's right 70% of the time he's pretty happy. I expect this could be just another exception that proves the general rule. After all, occasionally puppets can do unusual things if the puppeteers stop paying attention to the audience. ;)
I respectfully recommend that apart from the main judgment, which clearly explains the Court's majority reasoning, you also read the additional five (short!) judgments appended to the formal Order. i.e. at pp10-13 of https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf. Interestingly, three of them ("Declarations") are from judges who arguably wanted to go further than the majority; one is the dissenting opinion from the Ugandan judge; and the final one ("Separate Opinion") is from the Israeli Judge ad hoc Barak, which I thought made good points though ultimately I would side with the majority.
To fully understand those judgments (if interested!!), you probably also need to refer to the transcript of both hearings, because as usual the majority judgment covered only the arguments key to the majority findings. In particular the crucial "plausibility" point was very well argued by both sides, and I had no idea which way the Court would rule. In my view the Court may have departed from precedent, as even common law Courts routinely do in order to promote certainty. However, I think if the Court had been persuaded by Israel's argument, Provisional Measures would be ended forever. I also thought Professor Shaw for Israel was the best advocate in either hearing, but given the comprehensive undermining of his "no dispute" arguments by his own colleagues, he was in a pretty hopeless position. Israel's optimal legal strategy and its optimal propaganda strategy were mutually exclusive, and in trying to have its cake and eat it too Israel paid the price of such hubris. ;)
Enforcement? Of course that is up to the State in question (unless someone uses it at the UN to create a casus belli). Ultimately, and by definition, failure to self-enforce is the test of whether such a nation becomes routinely viewed as a "rogue state". :)
I expected the Western media to restate results that made lemonade from Israel's lemons. I did not anticipate the absolute "business as usual" doubling down on Khan Younis, or that the West would halt UNRWA funds on an unsubstantiated Israeli claim of Oct. 7 complicity. It is concerning that an international court of law makes a strong statement, only to see it ignored with no repercussions. My birth country still stands with this rogue Israel, and it brings shame to us all.
I knew Israel would have to run Gazan's up and down the strip in order to get Hamas. They just don't have enough troops to do it any other way. Whatever they do, they will be condemned as inhumane too.
Wonder what would have happened to Japan or Germany had they continued a low-grade gureurilla war following their loss in WW2?
Robert E. Lee, in explaining his decision to surrender at Appomatix to his Generals said, that releasing the men would lead to great destruction of the South. He was right.
After the Civil War, the US set up camps for slaves who were destitute. They could be fed but they found that they did not like having their freedom restrained so they said they had to stay at the camps to get food and shelter. They left and survived despite great difficulties. I'm not expert on this; I think it was a snippet from Shelby Foote's books on Civil War but it may have been someone else.
One has to stop fighting when one loses a war or bad things will happen. The Palestinians in Gaza have lived in welfare too long.
As an additional source of information, I would suggest you read Norman Finkelstein's, "Gaza, An Inquest into it's Martyrdom". It goes from Britain's postwar landgrab in the late '40s, the invitation to Zionist European Jews, a Western European government established which morphed into an apartheid society, and a legacy of aggressive wars and pogroms against their primarily Muslim neighbors and captive regions (Palestine) This genocide has been ongoing and supported by the U.S. and other lesser Western powers. Israel is a little, bitter strip of land currently populated by a cult of supremacy and war. Please do some reading -- erasing a civilization, especially when you have been an unwelcome guest for over 70 years, cannot be allowed in the modern world.
I am very familiar with the history. I do not blame Palestinians for fighting initially but a time for making peace comes and it has long since past. Gaza is a welfare state; the West and Arab countries paid a good chunk of the cost for those tunnels and weapons. One would expect a little appreciation for such aid. It's a real quandry; is there an obligation to feed people who constantly engage in war? Historically, there certainly has not been but there may be an obligation to do so today; do you know?
So why build the tunnels under residential buildings, hospitals, etc.?
Interesting that you would mention slavery. Care to support that statement because I'm pretty sure the West and Arab countries are providing money for food, medical care, housing, etc. in a primo location on the Mediteranian Sea in return for no services/products.
So what if residential buildings have tunnels? I have a basement at home. So what if hospitals have tunnels? Hospitals around the world have tunnels and underground car parking many levels deep. That kind of mentality is like a parent trying to control every aspect of its adult child.
Gazans were allowed to do factory work, and nursery work for sub par wages. They would be monitored coming and going. All passages in Gaza were fitted with high tech cameras, and satellites were actively observed movements. Yes, the Israeli government knew about the war practices Hamas was doing for some time. They did nothing to stop it. Please see some of Abby Martins documentaries -- very pertinent.
Many of the subterranean passages were in fact built by Israel when they were compelled to provide housing after stealing the Palestinian land and forcing the owners into Gaza. By international law, if you are an occupying force (Israel) water, power and sufficient food stuffs must be provided to the captive population. Gazans could not leave, could not obtain passports. Israel stopped water, lights, all electricity, fuel, medicines and food. They stopped all aid trucks, and only allowed a trickle. Bear in mind, the welfare, as you call it, was mandated by the United Nations, as their fishing industry, fruit and olive groves were all destroyed by Israel. It has been 70 years of oppression. No simple answers when dealing with an apartheid state
There is a teeny tiny element of truth in what you said but overall you are a liar or seriously misinformed. There were some tunnels built under hospitals when Israel was there; they had the drawings. Here is a video from 14 years ago. Smuggling was the primary reason it got started.
If DW documentaries (German) were allowed to film, it was approved by the IDF. Israel had maps of tunnels and access to the same sonar used in mine shafts to find survivors of collapse. Instead, they strafed with 2,000 lb. American bunker busters, regardless of lives lost, to close the shafts. The early stone and concrete block refugee camps often predate the hospitals -- How do you think they knew which tunnels to gas? Of course, they killed their own hostages, sadly. Ask any Palestinian about those tunnels -- most would say they protect from Israeli attacks -- smuggling would be a perk. With no employment, no freedom outside of the walled encampment, they were out of alternatives. Bear in mind, the UN outlawed the wall, as well.
Yes, the United States is definitely liable for committing genocide!
This is clearly stated in the ICF’s Order: Anyone is liable who's involved in an act of conspiracy to commit genocide; or is complicit in genocide acts.
“Pursuant to Article III of the Genocide Convention, the following acts are also prohibited by the Convention: conspiracy to commit genocide (Article III, para. (d)) and complicity in genocide (Article III, para. (e))”
Having spent decades living in four African countries it is reasonable to conclude that the judge may have been profitably coerced. Although given the coercion in American politics and the White House, perhaps, as they do for most American politicians, The Mossad just had some very interesting photos.
South Africa does have problems. but mistakes were made during apartheid which made them inevitable. It will take time for the society/culture to evolve beyond mere tribalism. One of the problems with colonial rule, for that is what apartheid was and is, is that it encourages division into familial and tribal groups. This suits the colonial ruler of course but lays the foundation for future problems. This is also why fundamentalist forms of religion thrive when people are oppressed. If you treat humans badly they will look for security in some form of system which provides it and tribalism and religion are the most common.
"This is also why fundamentalist forms of religion thrive when people are oppressed."
Thank you, that's very perceptive. It's also consistent with Tom Holland's Dominion and his interesting characterization of Christianity as the ultimate victimhood (and thus, amusingly, "woke") religion.
I would argue that mere *perception* of oppression is also sufficient. Which may be why populism, anti-social media, and fundamentalism go so well together. Cheers! :)
Well, since we know that the body responds 'physiologically to what we believe and think then it makes sense that a perception of oppression would create a physical fear response. It might be very powerful for some but not quite as powerful as living with constant fear as in a war zone, but yes, it would still have an impact and stimulate a need/desire to find a way to create a sense of security, order and safety which is where religions come in. Or as you say, any system which creates boundaries and a sense of security.
This is of course the role and purpose, albeit unconscious largely, of tribalism. The group holds together because of the structure of the system and its rules which represent boundaries. Behind the boundaries, or the psychological and emotional 'fence' there is a sense of safety. Some people need this more than others.
When humans are committed to and involved in a system for any reason it is a powerful distraction from daily fears and as part of a group/system, there is a sense of comfort, of being protected,i.e. the 'being looked after by a powerful daddy effect.' I suspect the effect is greater in those who, for whatever reasons, have lower levels of maturity. We know that children and teenagers, while they fight against it, do better if they have recognisable boundaries against which they can bounce. This suggest the less mature an adult is, then the greater the need for rigid or clearly identifiable boundaries.
I might be wrong about that but it would be interesting to study such qualities in those drawn to fundamentalist systems, whether religious or not.
Colonialism did do that but let's not forget that tribalism was here before colonialism. I also see my country's transition more as a financial transaction than a moral. And the 30 years of corruption isn't forgiven because there were once wicked Whities.
Tribalism is still with us but in more evolved and enlightened societies to lesser degrees. It takes time to move beyond tribalism which was in past times necessary for survival.
The less evolved societies are the more tribalistic they remain. This is why religions tend to be tribal and the more orthodox the more tribal they are.
The tribe has limited capacity for community consciousness because everyone beyond the tribe is other. In places like India and Africa, self first, then immediate family, then extended family and the rest are irrelevant. There is little capacity for community consciousness despite the fantasies woven by Wokerati in this age.
Religions also tend to be tribal because a tribal mentality unites and binds people together. Judaism is particularly tribal because the religion, unfortunately has turned past suffering into theological dogma where the tribe is an eternal victim and every member of the tribe victimised, whether they are or not.
Any 'tribal' group which gains power politically, corporately or in any form will look after itself regardless of the harm done to others. In fact tribalism makes it very difficult to relate to and understand others who are in essence shunned from the group. Most of this is unconscious and therefore unrecognised. Of course there are exceptions but they are rarely able to change the tribal group unless there are enough of them.
So, tribalism is a part of human nature and human function, but, in an enlightened world should not be dominant in governance or society.
That is the goal, but the goal of UNWRA was to provide aid to Gazans and there are plausible allegations that they have staff that participated in October 7th terrorist incident. It is possible that certain judges do not have as their goal reaching the proper ruling based on the evidence and law and fallible human judgement is involved in evaluating both as well. Courts are imperfect but they are the best we've got.
Allegations are not proof. Israel lies through its teeth all the time. And even if every UNWRA worker was a Palestinian Resistance supporter, that is no reason to punish the population.
Have Gazan officials admitted that they accidentially bombed a hospital and blamed Israel for it yet? Such a simple thing to do; admit we made a mistake.
International military experts have studied the video of the missile and deemed the trajectory made it very clear it came from the Israelis. Israel has been playing the lying game for so long, bombing hospitals and blaming Hamas, they are too stupid to realise that in this age there is usually video footage of their bombs. Such a simple thing to do, admit that Israel bombed the hospital and all the others instead of trying to blame the Palestinian Resistance.
Regarding friction in the comment section, it may be useful to know Hamas' side of the story. It's unsurprising that the document they issued last week was either not reported on, or only fragments were mentioned. Here it is in full - https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/oct-7-hamas-tells-their-side-of-the
Being held in a prison without access to water,food, power while family and friends are murdered is enough info for me. IF you did this to me, I would find you and in the end it would be you or me. There is no other choice.
I'd make peace for the good of my children. No one in Israeli prisons is doing without food, water and power. Maybe the occasional "rough interrogation," but more to fear from your fellow captives than the Israelis.
Wasn't this the court that refused to allow the playing of video/film showing the Hamas atrocities on Israeli citizens on Oct 7 even though it was critical evidence?
Also, Did the court order all hostages taken by Hamas to be immediately released?
The ICJ can only decide on the case brought to it, which is about charges of genocide on Israel. Like any legal proceedings, courts do not address whataboutism.
The court can only order a State to ceasefire and the Palestinian Resistance is not a State but a resistance militia. Hamas is simply a part of the Palestinian Resistance which has not signed onto the Geneva Conventions as Israel has and therefore does not come under the ICJ jurisdiction.
The court basically said, there is a case for genocide and Israel is on notice that evidence will be gathered for the trial and it will be held accountable for any acts of genocide. In other words, Israel has to stop slaughtering civilians.
And how is it known who is a civilian and who is Hamas given that Hamas uses civilians and civilian infrastructure as shields? Or do you think that this is not true?
Is that really a serious question? As of writing, more than 10,000 children have been killed by Israel. Let’s not count the women to simplify things. Half of those probably can’t even spell Hamas. If you are a soldier who can’t differentiate between a child and a militant, you’d probably kill your own men.
Actually, your post wasn't serious as most deaths are not by shooting guns. You take an RPG shot from a building, you then fire a round of artillary at the building. If a child is in the building they likely die.
You trace a rocket fired from the backyard of a building you level the building. Any child there will die.
The question in my mind is how is Israel developing their targets and I do not fully know.
When a people are crushed under military rule by an invader, occupier, coloniser then everyone is involved, mentally or physically, in the fight for freedom and justice. There may be some exceptions but not many. Most French supported the French Resistance and most Palestinians support the Palestinian Resistance for the same reasons.
The Hamas is to blame for everything trope is tedious, childish and stupid. As to using civilian infrastructure as shields, shall we dip a toe into the real world and logic? Radical I know.
A Resistance army is founded, formed, entrenched within the civilian population for there is no other choice. Never was, never will be.
And Gaza is a prison, a concentration camp, a ghetto created by Israel. If the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas are using the people of Gaza as shields then you are saying anyone who fought to be free from a concentration camp in WWII was using the other prisoners as shields and the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were also used as shields by their fighters.
Can you not see how utterly ridiculous your position is?
Did Hamas commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on Oct 7 and did Hamas itself film their committing these atrocities? And wasn't those atrocities the catalyst for the current war?
October 7 has so fat not been investigated by objective, third-party adjudicators. One if the major suspects in terms of possibly setting it all up and then holding back military responses, is Benjamin Netanyahu. The evidence that so many Israelis were killed by the IDF, is huge.
Sigh. If someone murders a member of your family, would you let the judicial system take its course or would you burn their entire neighborhood? When you then get taken to court, would it be relevant that someone from your family suffered first? Would that excuse your extra-judicial vendetta carried out against people who weren’t even responsible?
Your example is valid but It does make a difference in terms of punishment. Someone rapes your child and you kill them in a building across town, you will be convicted of something but it will likely be something like manslaughter and not much jail time. Kill the rapists child and it is obviously a different story. There is a spectrum.
Israel hasn’t just killed the rapist’s child, it has burned down the village the rapist lived in. It has branded all the people in the village, including the children, guilty. That’s very different to a manslaughter. It’s genocide.
So much the Israelis called evidence has been debunked as outright lies that nothing the Israelis say would be trusted by any relatively intelligent and sane individual.
Did Hamas commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on Oct 7 and did Hamas itself film their committing these atrocities? And weren't those atrocities the catalyst for the current war?
One of the catalysts is that Hamas captured Israelis and kept them alive to force a negotiation from inside their lifetime prison sentences handed out to Palestinians by the Israel government for no other reason than their sense of Jewish supremacy.
Good post John! However, the ICJ didn’t facilitate ceasefire. By not asking for a ceasefire, they indirectly allowed the continuation of the massacre after 25000+ have already died and more are dying fast. In any case ICJ apparently does not have any consequential significance, as their grand ruling has been already trashed and the same old atrocities are continuing. As almost everyone knows, the ultra wealthy lobbies are running the show here and unfortunately they will call the shots. All others are just helplessly watching.
The ruling has only been trashed by Israelis who live whole lifetimes of contempt for Goys, even the angelic ones in South Africa that brought this long overdue charge against chronic genocidaires.
Atrocities do not jusify genocide. The question of this case has very little to do with october 7th, it has to do with whether or not the Israeli state is committing or likely to commit genocide, regardless of their reasons.
Did Hamas commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on Oct 7 and did Hamas itself film their committing these atrocities? And wasn't those atrocities the catalyst for the current war?
BTW, the ICJ did not issue a ruling for a ceasefire.
Yes and yes. The question isnt whether or not israel is justified in going to war, the question is whether or not israel is conducting its war justly. Jus ad bellum versus jus in bello.
That was the key issue in my mind. I don't know that the war against Hamas is the right strategy, only time will tell, but I was greatly relieved that Israel can continue.
The court held that the evidence of genocide was plausible and Israel has to make reports and do things like allow aid in. I'm not fully sure of what actions Israel is taking, and I know that Egypt is part of the equation. I did not view the court ruling as a judgement and as with any war, there will be soldiers who violate rules of engagement either out of fear or intentionally.
Israel is in the same basic position that they were prior to the ruling but they will be slowed down some by the need to maintain documentation which is a headache when things are moving fast but they can and will deal with it in an appropriate fashion but mistakes will occasionally occur.
You're right, though perhaps for the wrong reasons! :) Actually there were six judgments. One fully explained majority judgment, plus five others at pp10-13 of https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf: three "declarations" from judges who wanted to go further than the majority; one from the Ugandan dissenter; and one "separate opinion" by Judge ad hoc Barak.
Israel has been repeatedly shown to lie and fabricate 'evidence.' In this age it is easy to mock up and doctor videos and from my understanding such evidence will not be accepted by the court because its focus is entirely on legality and not evidence which may or may not be fabricated. and which anyway, cannot be forensically reduced to a legal position. The case had to be put by Israel, in legal terms, as to why it was not committing genocide and clearly it failed because it is. Israel showing photos of what it claimed was evidence does not cut it in any legal sense.
As to your question. Hamas probably did not commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on October 7.
One Israeli soldier was on video early in the piece, although it has probably been disappeared, saying, it was not Hamas/Palestinian Resistance who attacked civilians but Palestinian civilians who had broken out of Gaza behind the Resistance fighters. He also said the fighters were targeting police and soldiers, not civilians and both of those are legitimate targets under occupation.
This makes more sense. the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas are actually well trained and professional and their goal was to target soldiers and police and to take hostages. Wasting time attacking civilians would reduce their capacity to achieve their goal of taking as many hostages as possible from the occupying forces.
As to whether or not activities were filmed, logic says, not by the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas as they had far more important things to do, but certainly likely for the civilians who broke out after them. This group comprised young men, mostly around the age of 20, which is what one would expect. It is perfectly possible that some of this group did commit atrocities and it was filmed.
What needs to be remembered is that those around the age of 20 would have grown up from the time they were toddlers pretty much, being subjected to sonic booms to mentally torment and torture the prisoners in Gaza and regular bombing raids by Israel which tore apart family, friends, homes and lives. Israel removed illegal Jewish settlers from Gaza, and settled them illegally in other parts of Palestine, in 2005 and turned Gaza into a concentration camp, the world's largest open-air prison. That is 18 years of torture, torment, death, blood, fear and horror - the only world those young men had known.
These young men had a childhood of horrific violence and constant fear inflicted on them by the Israelis. One can safely assume that a few of them would be less than mentally stable. Blame Israel for that.
An American Jewish writer made the comment in an article, probably also disappeared by now, that if the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had broken out and found Germans dancing and partying at a music festival just outside their prison walls, that they would no doubt have attacked them as well.
So, to answer your question, yes, there probably were atrocities committed, yes there probably were events filmed, by not by Hamas/Palestinian Resistance, but by the very damaged young prisoners who followed them out when they broke down the fence.
However, any films coming from the Israelis are likely to be fabricated and should be dismissed.
If it is as you say, would Hamas cooperate in investigation and prosecution of those civilians? Here is an example of the level of lying that Hamas leaders engage in. Maybe he is just deluded; I don't know but I think he is a liar:
Again, not particularly relevant to the case. The question isnt "are israels actions understandable and justified" the question is "do israels actions amount to a violation of the genocide convention"
You are right that it is not relevant to the case but it is relevant to you as an individual commenting on the case. If you deny that Hamas did not commit atrocities and kill civilians, I would immediately stop reading anything you said as you are not a serious person or are blind with rage.
Not relevant to the case. Israel claims they did but then Israel says the ICJ is a Hamas tool. Nothing Israel says can be trusted. Many of its most hyperbolic charges have been debunked,. i.e. headless babies, microwaved babies, and babies hung on lines. Even claims of rape have not been proven and the Israeli police have said they cannot find witnesses or evidence for the claims.
The ICJ has received all evidence brought to it from both sides. It has heard all arguments from both sides. Based on these, the ICJ was able to decide on a ruling.
You forgot the word "provisional." You also forgot to mention that they did not rule on the evidence beyond saying it was "plausible." If one wants to take that as a major defeat of Israel's position, I'm completely fine with that position even if I might disagree with it.
I believe Israel wanted the court to not have jurisdiction; they did completely lose on that issue and I'm o.k. with the court ruling that way.
In legalese the word 'plausible' is powerful. It says there is a case to be made for genocide and further investigation will take place before it goes to trial.
Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions on genocide and so the court does have jurisdiction over the Zionist State. The court does not have the power to force Israel to comply but the UN can certainly initiate sanctions.
The Palestinian Resistance is not a State and not a signatory so the court cannot demand a ceasefire from them. However, what the ICJ wants is for Israel to stop slaughtering civilians and it can keep fighting the Palestinian Resistance if it chooses, but it must stop its genocide.
Israel could not last a week if its ports and airports were closed and all goods in and out of the country were halted. Boycotts are increasing and sanctions will follow. Not all countries but enough to destroy the Israeli economy which is already in tatters from this colonial war waged to maintain occupation, colonisation and apartheid.
South Africa was bigger, richer, stronger and more self sufficient than Israel and it could not hold out.
The court does not allow such video evidence and since it was from Israel it was hardly going to be reliable. But, quite simply, such so-called evidence is not allowed to be presented. Neither does the court have the remit to order all hostages taken by the Palestinian Resistance to be immediately released. The Resistance is not a State or a signatory and Israel is both. The court should have ordered Israel to release all 6 million of its hostages, by ending the occupation, and release the more than 10,000 it has imprisoned without charge but that is not in its remit either.
The main case will be the best path towards exposing the genocidal motive for the propaganda. When its shown that Israel inflated the effects of Hamas' attack in order to validate its violence, Zionism will be damaged.
See my blog '‘South Africa’s case is legally watertight’ on the 'International Humanitarian Law & Mediation' page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com. NB what SA's counsel Vaughan Lowe KC argued:
1st – The exercise of the right of self-defence cannot justify or be a defence to genocide &
2nd – The prohibition of genocide is not an ordinary rule of international law: it is jus cogens – an overriding fundamental principle, at all times and without exception, for all humanity,
I wrote - 'provided the burden of proof has been discharged on the other threshold issues, i.e. ‘dispute; ‘jurisdiction’; ‘actus reus’; and ‘intention’, for which South Africa adduced overwhelming primary evidence from credible sources, including the Israeli Government and the IDF themselves, then it’s application for provisional measures which must satisfy the legal test of ‘plausibility’, is legally watertight, as the core principles mentioned above are not legally capable of any rebuttal.' - My reading of the ICJ judgment is:
1. 'Jurisdiction' - has been accepted.
2. 'Actus reus' - the court accepted that SA's case is plausible. So if Israel does not restrain itself SA can invite the court to issue further provisional measures ['PM']. Every PM ordered by the ICJ bangs a further nail into the coffin lid of Israel's defence on actus reus.
3. 'Intention' - this will be a battleground at trial, however the court named 3 senior figures who have made statements inciting genocide. Therefore if Israel does nothing to investigate & prosecute it will be in breach of a provisional measure which its own ad hoc judge voted in favour of. So, the court is putting Israel to a test by calling its bluff.
If Vaugham Lowe is correct on 'jus cogens' and I consider that he is, NB my blog on the same page about 'jus cogens', and what Israel's counsel Malcolm Shaw KC wrote on p. 317 of the '8th edition of his book 'International Law (2017) - 'The [ICJ] in the Bosnain Genocide case reaffirmed in its Order of 8 April 1993 on provisional measures the view expressed in the Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Genocide Convention that the crime of genocide "shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to hummanity ... and is contrary to the moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nation."...' In my blog I quote from an article by Criddle & Evan-Fox in which they state, 'Lauterpacht asserted that peremptory norms derive their unique legal authority from two interrelated sources – international morality and general principles of state practice. In Lauterpacht’s view, overriding principles of international law may be regarded as constituting principles of international public order (ordre international public). These principles [may] be expressive of rules of international morality so cogent that an international tribunal would consider them forming a part of those principles of law generally recognised by civilised nations which the ICJ is bound to apply [under] it’s statute.'
So looking at Israel's defence in the round, one plank i.e. jurisdiction has fallen away, another plank i.e. 'actus reus' may fall away within one month, a third plank i.e. 'intention' is being tested by calling Israel's bluff, and on the technical issues of 'jus cogens' & 'erga omnes' Israel does not appear to have a plank to stand on. So if Israel maintains the intensity of its military operations in Gaza it will lose at trial, i.e. Israel is on track to be found guilty of the core international crime of genocide.
I recognize what Hamas did was totally unacceptable, but I also wonder why Israel was negligent in ignoring the warnings, and even had in its possession the plans that Hamas was going to implement. Although there were false claims, like Hamas raped women and killed babies what they did was unjustifiable. Perhaps as in the past they expected retaliation, but didn't expect it to occur on this level. Watching the Israeli assault on Gaza leaves no question in my mind that Israel is implementing a genocide. One only need to look at what's going on in the West Bank, watch the killings, and destruction, as well as taking over large swaths of land to build Jewish settlements and emptying out the lives of the Palestinians, and displacing them. I think the US is also culpable in implementing this genocide since without the US Israel doesn't have the bombs to implement this degree of destruction. I don't know if this will affect Netanyahu's position and those in his extreme right wing cabinet, since they have already gone too far. I think anyone who tries to justify what is happening to the Palestinians due to what Hamas did no doubt views Palestinian lives with the same distain that Israel has done since it's inception in 1948.
The retaliatory responses by Israel have always been extreme, and I never saw the benefit in regard to the Palestinian people. I understand what you're saying, and I think the world this time will not forgive Israel for this assault. She's already lost. However Palestine may also be gone, since they have implemented so much destruction, so much death. I do think it will allow people to be more open about their take on Israel without being labeled an anti-Semite. I'm also hoping it will destroy, or greatly lessen AIPAC's grip on the American government. When you say Israel has deliberately concealed what happened what are you referring to? I think, since they were forewarned they may have let it happen, so they could implement a genocide. Can't say for sure, but it's a feeling I have.
We need an independent investigation into the cause of death of every Israeli that died, and then their occupation. There's sufficient evidence that Israel killed some of its own, but we need a proper accounting. I added a comment to all, a link to Hamas statement that few have read.
Well, from the beginning I knew their account was riddled with lies. rapes, babies killed, no. Max Blumenthal covered a lot of this from the beginning. I know that Israeli soldiers fired into buildings and told to do so, killing civilians as well. The count came down from the beginning by 200 since they were Palestinians soldiers that were killed. Those at the park are suing Israel for their slow response, and they immediately cleared that area, which makes me wonder and Hamas denied killing the people in the park which were more then several hundred. I agree and most of all make the public aware of exactly what happened. I don't know if you saw this but it interesting and does make you wonder about things. The Fence, on Frontline.
I did see it, thanks. Keep in mind that there's always a fog of war. The Israeli public may overwhelmingly be screaming for Palestinian blood but that will subside, they'll feel guilty, and will blame their government. That ensures a period of chaos, and investigation.
Why was what the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas did totally unacceptable? Let us put aside the unproven Israeli claims of atrocities by the Resistance and look at the facts. They broke out of the Gaza prison with the goal of targeting soldiers and police, all of which is legitimate under occupation, and with the goal of taking hostages which is also legitimate given it is the only language Israel has ever understood.
All of that happened because Israel has subjected the Palestinians to the longest holocaust in modern history and the most cruel and evil occupation and colonisation in modern history.
When and if the atrocity claims against the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas are proven, then you can say they were unacceptable. However, the totally unacceptable thing, regardless is Israel'sd human rights atrocities and war crimes over 75 years to maintain occupation, colonisation and apartheid.
Trust me I very much support the Palestinian cause, and always have. Well, at least according to most sources Israelis were killed, and some taken hostage. I understand what you're saying, but when this happens Israel retaliates with such a vengeance that many more Palestinians die, now they are using it to implement a genocide. The Nambian genocide implemented by the Germans in the latter part of the 19th century was due to an uprising that killed over 100 Germans, they too had enough since their land was taken over by the Germans and they were relegated to a reserve. The consequences for them were most is not all their people were killed, some 90, 000. Germany finally fessed up to committing the genocide rather recently. I really felt the retaliatory response would be big, since Netanyahu needs a reason to stay otherwise his ass would be in jail. He's corrupt. Why didn't they wait till after he was convicted? Now he has what he always wanted, a one state solution., and time out of jail. Taking hostages also is going to bring a greater reaction, and it has. Not that I don't understand why things like this are done, but really bad timing, and I don't believe in killing people, though don't ask me what the alternative is. Well, if Israel didn't have America they wouldn't be able to bomb the hell out of them, so the US is also culpable. Since Israel was forewarned of an upcoming attack a year before it happened and even had their plans, but ignored them, as well as people monitoring the Gaza border reporting suspicious behavior, also ignored, and then Egypt warned them several days before of an impending attack, and once again ignored. Maybe they knew it was going to happen and let it in order to implement their plans for a genocide. I just don't know Roslyn.
It is irrelevant if the Israelis thought they could play an evil game and exterminate more Palestinians. Israel would need to rid the land of 6 million Palestinian Muslims and Christians and that is such a bad look.
And, as we have seen, it is damn hard to exterminate people even if you think they are cockroaches. In three months 30,000 dead in the Gaza prison and 350 in the rest of Occupied Palestine. To knock off 6 million would need real organisation and the fact is, the world would not tolerate it.
And, even if Israel could eradicate 6 million Palestinians it would also need to exterminate 2 million who are second class citizens in Israel and the 8 million in the Diaspora. It is absolutely impossible for Israel to kill 16 million people for that is the only way Palestinian Resistance could ever end. Oh, it could end in a two or one state solution but not enough blood for the Zionistas and probably much too logical for their addled minds.
"In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly" You don't have to kill them all. You can destroy their entire infrastructure, not only homes, but hospitals, schools, universities, etc. Turn their land to rubble. No food, no drugs, especially in an area highly prone to infectious disease with unclean water, yep that's a genocide. The West Bank if you read about is just about gone.
“Thin” the Palestinian population “to a minimum.”1
“I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it. “2
Can you guess who said which one? Which is Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, in 1938, and which is Netanyahu this week referring to Gaza? Well, the first one is the more recent, but you can see that the plan has not changed. And Netanyahu’s appointees say much the same.
His finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said last March that “Palestinians don’t exist” and called for more “sterile” – Palestinian free – zones in the West Bank (WB). Others have said it is now Gaza Nakba 2023, referring to the mass expulsions of five out of seven Palestinians from Israel as it became a state in 1948.2a On October 13, +972 Magazine published an Israeli intelligence document which concludes:
The evacuation of the civilian population from Gaza to Sinai…will yield positive, long-term strategic outcomes for Israel, and is an executable option. It requires determination from the political echelon in the face of international pressure, with an emphasis on harnessing the support of the United States.
And the idea goes even farther back than these examples. Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, said in 1895: “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border…while denying it any employment in our country….Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”3
Many other Israeli politicians have also asserted the necessity of removing all Palestinians. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Housing Minister Eitam said in 1950:
“We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here.”
In 1980 Israel published the Drobles Plan, which stated that the goal was to “remove any trace of doubt about our intention to control to control Judea and Samaria (what Israel calls the WB) forever.”
Netanyahu’s opponent, Avigdor Lieberman, said in 2009 that Israel’s Palestinian citizens should be stripped of their citizenship unless they pledged loyalty to a Jewish state. In polls from 2015-7 that asked Israelis if Israeli Arabs and West Bank Palestinians should be expelled from Israel, 32-58% said yes.
It is very easy to trace genocidal statements for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians back through not just all of Israel's brief history but all of Zionism's longer history from the 1890's.
As to the West Bank being just about gone, with 4 million Palestinians remaining in what is euphemistically called the West Bank so Israel does not have to say Palestine and can pretend it is an outer suburb of Tel Aviv, the facts on the ground cannot simply be exterminated.
When the Zionists planned to rid Palestine of non-Jews, it was in a time when racism toward Arabs was common in Europe and the Zionists were, despite being atheists, still ardent believers, zealots in fact, that any smidge of Jewish ancestry created a superior human being - they had in short, tickets on themselves and their hubris was immense. They rejected the religion and its God but kept some of the most primitive and barbaric teachings as part of their fascist, racist, political system.
Zionist Israel is and always was a colonial nightmare which should never have happened. Indeed, if such a colonial venture were mooted today it would be shouted down as racist, elitist, unjust. Time to shout it down once and for all.
This will tell you how many Palestinians can live in an area and how Israel controls what goes on since Abbas attends to very little and Israel is taking their land, displacing them little by little and yes it can be done, and it's going on now, and for a very long time. Not to mention they are killing some one hundred or more each year and no one is held accountable not even the settlers. Not a big number, but live with the fear who is next. They drive through their streets and tear them up, no reason. They are stealing their farm land, no food, hunger prevails. I don't disagree with you on what Israel is. My mother was an anti-Zionist and I heard it all growing up and her greatest fear was that ultimately this would descend into a third world war. Great, and I'm not even married back then. I heard it all my life.
I agree that it wasn't a tentative of genocide by trying to kill them directly but seems like a tentative to displace the population from the land by destroying the infrastructure and making the place uninhabitable . Egipt refused to take them in even when pressured by the americans otherwise it could have been successful nobody stays willfully in a ruined city with no essential services
Netanyahu wants this to go on for another year, or more, and by that time how many more people killed, since he thumbs his nose at just about everyone and has no regard for the law, otherwise why is he being brought up on charges of corruption that could land him in jail? No one is going to take the Palestinians, well, if in the time he has remaining maybe they'll be so few someone will. I want to see if the snake listens to ICJ.
Read the story of Stalingrad if you want to know how resilient and resourceful humans can be. The Palestinians are tough. They have survived more than 75 years of the longest holocaust and most evil military colonial occupation in history.
Why would Egypt solve Israel's problem created by Israel. As the occupier Israel has total responsibility for the Palestinians and they will have to pay for their care and to repair all they have destroyed. Either that or boycotts and sanctions crush the Israeli economy and Zionist Israel is consigned to the colonial shite-pit of history.
Thank you, Professor. Your moral courage is truly astounding--from another era.
One thing: you mentioned in your lecture at CIS Australia (and at other times in the past, I believe) that great power politics make the U.N. irrelevant, or so beholden to the great powers that created it that it may as well be. How does this decision by the ICJ square with that assessment? Why should we care what the ICJ says when IsraelAmerica will continue to do whatever they want to do?
I have no training in law, but I wonder if, when this case gets to trial, the United States might be charged as accessory before the fact for having armed Israel with the weaponry used and having abetted the Netanyahu administration to undertake the military assault of Gaza. Biden certainly gave Israel a green light to defend itself with an offensive military operation that has grievously harmed the population that the ICJ case is all about. HWF, Mesa AZ
Yes, the United States is definitely liable for committing genocide!
This is clearly stated in the ICF’s Order: Anyone is liable who's involved in an act of conspiracy to commit genocide; or is complicit in genocide acts.
“Pursuant to Article III of the Genocide Convention, the following acts are also prohibited by the Convention: conspiracy to commit genocide (Article III, para. (d)) and complicity in genocide (Article III, para. (e))”
Suppose anything is possible but one would have to show that it was official government policy to commit genocide. I think that is unlikely in the extreme as there would be "whistleblowers" coming out of the woodwork in the US.
That is not true. Back in the '70s he supported a single state. Perhaps he was lying, but that is what he said as a young man. An incredibly bright young man too.
How did Israel’s American thug react? By ending funding to UNRWA.
It’s not surprising. When one loses moral and political opinion from the international community, they resort to straw man and nitpicking.
I've seen stats that say Israel is doing an exceptional job of keeping civilian casualties down as urban warfare conducted in the fashion that Hamas does is extremely difficult to deal with. I do not have the expertise to evaluate those claims so I remain as in the dark as you are.
Those stats are nonsense. First, they rely on the idea that the 30 percent of the 25,000 who are not women and children are all Hamas. But that makes no sense. There are many thousands of uncounted corpses in the demolished buildings. Some are Hamas and some not. We have no way to know.
Second, you can read the article in 972 about how Israel chooses its “ power targets”. Basically any house or apartment building which has any connection with Hamas, like a low level Hamas member lives there, gets targeted. Notice they have also target churches. The result is that northern Gaza and much of the rest of Gaza is a moonscape.
They also began the war I:posing a complete blockade on all power and water and were forced to back down because not even Biden could defend that.
They are not trying to kill as many Palestinians as possible, but very few countries accused of genocide actually try to do that. They just have to make Gaza uninhabitable and claim it was all for legit military reasons.
They absolutely are killing as many people as possible. They will not stop until the Palestinians 'have left this earth'. Have you listened to the judge who cited the genocidal intentions of the Israeli leadership and have you not seen that those intentions are being carried out on the ground?
I agree that Israel is committing genocide, but no, they aren’t killing as many as possible. as fast as possible because they want some degree of plausible deniability so they can claim the deaths are collateral damage. They have dropped tens of thousands of tons of bombs — if they genuinely wanted to maximize the death toll as fast as possible the death toll would be many hundreds of thousands. It may reach that through disease and starvation. And that was the plan.
They are committing genocide but trying to do it with enough plausible deniability so that idiots can claim it is just a military campaign. They have a much better chance of accomplishing their ethnic cleansing preference by demolishing civilian infrastructure and making Gaza uninhabitable. Many Gazans might want to leave rather than watch their children die. In fact if you have followed this you will know Israeli officials have urged, on “ humanitarian” grounds, that Gazans be given assistance so they can all leave elsewhere.
And even that is something they have had to walk back, or so they claim, but the Israelis always work by establishing “ facts on the ground”. People will either have to live in tent cities indefinitely, with a massive mortality rate, or they will move. That was obviously the goal. And they didn’t have to kill as many as possible with bombs. They just have to kill some, and let the physical destruction of homes and infrastructure do the rest.
They're after plausible deniability? Their stated intent (and actions!) are and have been so blatant that even the American and Jewish judges voted in favour of 'plausible' genocide and will investigate - which was the purpose of the case.
They most certainly are trying to kill as many Palestinians as fast as possible and hoping starvation and disease will do the rest. Any comparison of bombs dropped and deaths, particularly children, and this genocide by Israel outranks other conflicts in modern history in terms of numbers, both bombs and bodies in the period of time.
Several things can be true at the same time. Gaza is the most brutal bombing campaign in decades, but they could have killed far more with tens of thousands of bombs if they chose to do so. If you think about this for ten seconds you know this. They could hit refugee camps and fleeing civilians out in the open— all of them. Rather than partially wrecking hospitals they could literally level them to the ground with everyone inside.
They don’t do this because it would be too obvious and even Biden couldn’t pretend it wasn’t happening. Instead they do as I described. It is genocide and ethnic cleansing and involves deliberate killing of civilians but they pretend it is collateral damage.
I am just going to mute this thread because I am tired of people who think precision in an argument doesn’t matter. The South Africans didn’t try to claim Israel was trying to kill as many Gazans as they could as fast as they could because it isn’t true and isn’t necessary to show a genocide is occurring.
Quite how, 'but they could have done worse' is an argument for anything is the question.
A partially wrecked hospital is as non-functional as one literally levelled.
They did hit refugee camps. They attacked buildings, facilities and areas where they knew civilians would be, nearly half of them children. Their evil bots sliced Gaza into areas and designated some as safe and the Israelis sent the Palestinian refugees into those areas and then bombed them.
If they were not trying to kill as many as possible as fast as possible they would NOT HAVE USED DUMB BOMBS and they would have allowed in food, water, medicine and humanitarian aid.
Sure, keep the genocide at a slower pace so we can disguise that we are killing as many Palestinians as fast as we can might be the modus operandi but actions speak louder than words.
You are splitting hairs. If the Israelis were not trying to kill as many Palestinians as they could as fast as they could then there would not be so many dead.
Of course that is not necessary to show a genocide is occurring but to deny it as a reality makes no sense.
I'm with you Jeff. It seems like a truly genocidal government wouldn't bother to evacuate people and declare safe zones and drop leaflets warning of airstrikes before they started bombing. Those seem like the actions of someone who is at least trying to get civilians out of the way, not someone actively trying to murder as many civilians as possible.
War sucks. People die. Civilians die. Especially when a guerilla force hides weapons in schools and hospitals. American bombs killed thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians for years. Were we genocidal?
The leaflets are a cover. ANd when people go to the designated places and they are bombed there, what do you have to say about that.
And yes, the US was genocidal in its actions. US has been built upon genocide and believes in clean slates of this nature: https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/nikhil-pal-singh-pervasive-power-settler-mindset
Well, a lot of folk have argued exactly that! :)
However, setting that aside, your first paragraph unfortunately fails to persuade. You could apply exactly the same logic to demonstrate that Germany under Hitler couldn't possibly be genocidal - because of the expressly Zionist efforts made by the Chancellor, often against opposition from his party, to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine between 1933 and 1939 - after which, for obvious reasons, it became infeasible.
Ultimately we need to stop emoting and instead look at the legal classifications. Which the Court has done.
I think we need to evaluate the evidence we can for ourselves instead of relying on the judgement of grossly flawed institutions that have demonstrated their anti-Israel sentiment for decades.
The fog of war is very dense, especially this war. So many people pumping propaganda makes honest evaluation of claims very difficult. I wish we had a trustworthy, apolitical institution to help do that, but the UN Court is neither of those.
There is nothing dense or fogged about the level of slaughter and destruction. Nor is there anything dense about Israel actively targeting civilians with bombs and snipers, the latter shooting pregnant women in hospitals. Neither is there anything dense about images of Israeli Occupation Forces shooting and killing men and tossing their bodies into pits.
"
And there is certainly nothing dense or fogged about Israel refusing to allow in medical aid and children, toddlers, babies, adults having limbs amputated without anaesthetic. That Is Israel's choice. Starving the Palestinians is Israel's choice. Refusing them clean water is Israel's choice. Refusing them humanitarian aid is Israel's choice.
IT IS ALL IN FACT CRYSTAL CLEAR.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C1xH7DFo3on/?fbclid=IwAR1fMc_R9xol3xZ3WHaU2XIDOkqLpqHD98iqVCSiJRofhY2SrkTuZCjlDyY
The only evacuation Israel has pursued is pushing 2.3 million Palestinians south with the hope of killing as many as possible and driving the rest into Egypt.
NONE of it is to save lives. With one of the earliest calls to go to the Rafah Crossing, Israel bombed them when they arrived.
They have a truly sick computerised system where robots invent safe zones, send the Palestinians to them and Israel then bombs them.
If Israel was trying to NOT kill civilians it would not have bombed every university, nearly every hospital, medical centres, schools and aid agencies. Actions speak louder than words and Israel's actions are and always have been ACTIVE GENOCIDE.
I would point you to the words of the great Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "the line between good and evil does not divide man from man but runs through every human heart."
You have convinced yourself of a binary: Palestinians good / Jews bad. Solzhenitsyn's point is that humans don't work like that. The world is far messier and complicated and ambiguous. Are there truly bad people? Absolutely. But they are incredibly rare )about as rare as saints.) We compare people to Hitler precisely because Hitler was such an outlier in human history. I know that moral ambiguity is hard for you to see on this issue, but consider that Solzhenitsyn spent 10 years in a Siberian gulag, so he knew something about the human nature and the depth of evil and goodness that was possible even in grossly flawed and broken people.
You may be right. It is possible that Israel is trying to murder as many Palestinians as possible. But there is evidence in both directions, and if you can't see that, you are too blinded by hatred.
Really. You must only read Zionist hasbara.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KvMK6pGRAQ
Of course, our political leaders are proud to be the most corrupt in the west. The UK runs a close second, but we beat them everytime.
Albert Einstein: "The most important aspect of our policy must be our ever-present, manifest desire to institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst … The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people. … What saddens me is less the fact that the Jews are not smart enough to understand this, but rather, that they are just not smart enough to want it.”
The ICJ ruling was "a black day for Israel" only because it underlined the contemptible religious bigotry forming the base of Israeli politics.
Norman Finkelstein: “The biggest insult to the memory of the holocaust is not denying it but using it as an excuse to commit genocide against the Palestinian people.”
To be fair, UNRWA did fire a dozen people for material participation in the Oct 7th attacks. (How material, I don't know.) But when you admit that you (accidently?) took funds that were for refugee relief and paid them to terrorists who murdered 1300 people, it's not unreasonable that those writing you checks might have some reticence to continue.
For those of you who think UNRWA was completely in the right to fund terrorism and that Israel deserves everything it gets (which is apparently most of you here), rest assured that the Kabuki theatre will be over soon, and the funds will be quietly restored with interest. The Western bureaucratic/NGO establishment always takes care of its own, even the ones who are genocidal terrorists.
https://original.antiwar.com/porter/2024/01/07/how-israel-leverages-genocide-with-hamas-massacres/
"IsraeI’s Social Security Administration in mid-December released a complete list of those killed in the attack, with the circumstances of death of each.
That official document showed that 695 of the deaths were Israeli civilians, 373 were Israeli security forces, and 71 were foreigners, for a total of 1,139 victims." So 766 civilians. Who killed them?
Note the large number of IDF soldiers killed. This was a HUGH battle.; helicopters raking the scene with 30mm cannon fire. What about all the burnt out cars; there appear to be hundreds at the rave site. How would Hamas burn all these cars? How many people died in those cars? Also, in the middle of this melee, some Hamas supposedly took time out to rape women! Of course, none of the women released by Hamas reported any rapes. If there were, EVERYONE on Planet Earth would know by now.
You have body cameras, eye witnesses who were hiding under dead bodies, broken pelvises of executed young women (I'm sure those IDF helicopters took the time to shoot young women in the genitals.) If you won't see what's right in front of you, there's nothing that can be done for you.
The IDF may have problems. Israel may have problems. But nothing excuses what the Palestinians did. No amount of "occupation" makes the mass murder of teenagers at a rave acceptable.
Sadly, the bulk of NGO’s are operating on ideology in Gaza and are not serving the material and psychological well-being of the Palestinians. The largest per capita aid flows in the planet have been used to build a war machine. You cannot pour hundreds of billions of dollars of aid into a population of 3 million and all you have to show for it are an underground city, caches of bombs and weapons throughout civilian infrastructure, lucrative paycheques for terrorists and ideologically captured schools that teach your children to aim toward only one goal of killing Jews. This is not resistance, it’s an Islamic fascist state that is hell bent on sacrificing its population to establish its caliphate aims.
These children grow up knowing that there is a powerful army which regularly kills people like them with impunity. This army proudly tells the world that it is a JEWISH army. What do you expect these kids to think?
https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/serious-allegations-against-unrwa-staff-gaza-strip
There is plausible evidence that the reaction was reasonable although I think UNRWA is the only way to provide aid to Gazans at this time. At some point in time, I might support a decision for US to end funding. I don't think the US will do this but it will require UNRWA to do a better job of screening applicants and they should.
Another classic case of collective punishment. You found a few bad apples in a barrel so you threw all away. You found some soldiers committing war crimes, so you punished the entire army.
But that’s ok, the motivation is clear. Hypocrisy is hard to disguise.
I want to continue providing funds in UNRWA and you call me a hypocrite? I just want to apply some pressure so they will do a better job. The ICJ did that in my opinion and I support their judgment too.
The USA is the hypocrite.
Is it not wonderful that you can express that opinion without fear? Say something similar in Gaza about Hamas and I cannot say with certainty that your life would be in danger but try getting others to try and change things, I think the odds of retribution are pretty high. In fact it would be a near certainty unless they consider you crazy.
Well, I fear my government but that's not good whataboutism. Let's stick with the fact that the USA's fight for world democracy is bullshit, and that it pretending to soften Israel's blows whilst supplying it weapons is contradictory.
Jeff, this is a great point. The "Queers for Palestine" signs have been hilarious for the same reason. Carry the same sign in Rafah and see what happens.
You said, “I might support a decision for US to end funding.”
You found some bad employees and so you are going to close down the company to end its (UNWRA) funding?
No; threaten it to make necessary changes. In the end, if having UNWRA employees who kill Iraeli's is necessary to feed Gaza's children I'd probably do it but it would not be the generous funding that has been provided in the past and now is rubble due to Hamas actions. Open-ended commitments are dangerous and we have done Gazans no favors by showering them with aid.
From the same people who had no prior knowledge of October 7...
And the timing is so convenient!
Is the "collective west" offering any alternative to UNRWA? They could if they wanted. Trouble is, genocide is bakeed into the ideology of Zionism since it advocates displacing one people for another in order to create a new state for the new population. Zionism is nothing but land theft dressed up in religious bric-a-brac. And the western governments are fully on board in support of Zionism.
I look forward to hearing John's thoughts on why the ICJ ruled this way. I, too, am amazed that a UN affiliated court would meaningfully rule against Israel on such a case, regardless of how solid the South African case was. Frankly, it lends direly needed legitimacy to international institutions, which of course those of us in the realist camp tend to dismiss as impotent puppets of the United States. It'll be very interesting to see how the ICJ measures are enforced...
The UN as a body has been anti-Israel for decades. The Assembly is so biased no one pays any attention to its resolutions. That's why the security council resolutions are the only thing anyone ever pays attention to. (That and the fact that the security council resolutions are backed up by the 800 lb gorilla -- us.) I don't think there's anything weird or symbolic in a "UN court" telling Israel they must let their enemies murder Jews without responding.
I feared that would be the result. The ruling gives the court a little more legitimacy in my mind although they ignored some precedent in reaching their decision. They just flat-out ignored the standard of proof they enunciated in the Myanmar decision. Courts do that sort of thing all the time and I suppose it is important in trying to get to justice.
Israel gets to continue the war against Hamas which is the important thing and maybe Israel can find a way of getting aid to children. I know it is rude to say but I do not think many of their parents deserve that aid but they'll get it and so will Hamas. It is like requiring that US and USSR be required to forward food through the lines to starving Berliners in WW2. It's a bad idea but I guess it is a necessary cost. to civilization.
Meanwhile Hamas will, of course, face no resolution or sanction from UN because, after-all, it is the Jews. Threw that last comment in to be rude; I'm not convinced it is true but it might be.
If it does not matter, why did Israel bother to defend itself in the ICJ? You should apply as an adviser to Netanyahu. The pro-palestinians would love you.
you are missing the point
Then what is the point? A panel of a lawyers from a body with a 70 year track record of antisemitism has demonstrated it is against the Jewish state. Seriously, what does this actually matter?
I believe Israel has a great variety of mid-term problems. It may well not exist within 20 years. There's a viable possibility both it and its neighbors (especially Iran) will be radioactive slag. Next to that, 16 lawyers whining in Brussels is inconsequential.
You sound as arrogant and delusional as the Israeli government over and out
It is NOT a Jewish state. It is a Zionist state. That is why Zionism is popular in the ranks of those who have historically been fonts of antisemitism, e.g., the "Christian" right.
Galen, I choose to use the terms these groups use to describe themselves.
Iran is a Muslim state because it says it is and because the vast majority of its population calls themselves Muslims.
Israel is a Jewish state because it says it is and the vast majority of its population calls themselves Jews.
If it's wrong to question self-identification for individuals, it's also wrong to do so for countries.
The most interesting ruling was that South Africa had created the necessary dispute with Israel, a requirement for standing. That proof was a grey area, yet the judges used it as an excuse - lovely.
The question of the existence of a dispute was addressed by Sam Husseini in a letter to the ICJ. There WAS a dispute, despite what Israel pretended.
https://husseini.substack.com/p/my-letter-to-the-international-court
I had already read and liked that letter - everyone should.
By good timing, I was on Naked Capitalism now, where Yves said: "It was not all that far into President Donaghue’s reading of the ruling that it was clear the Court had not even slightly bought what Israel was selling. I was surprised to see the Court rely on an Israel FAQ from its Foreign Ministry as the basis for Israel having responded to South Africa. As we pointed out earlier, these sort of media communications are normally not considered to be formal responses. But perhaps in this era of intense narrative management, those boundaries may have shifted somewhat. But the noteworthy part was not the Court’s conclusion here but that it didn’t deign to dignify Israel’s attempt to dispute the dispute by mentioning its arguments, "
Courts often have to be brief. The majority ruling focused on what the Court considered the salient points.
I respectfully recommend that apart from the main judgment, which clearly explains the Court's majority reasoning, you also read the additional five (short!) judgments appended to the formal Order. i.e. at pp10-13 of https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf. Interestingly, three of them ("Declarations") are from judges who arguably wanted to go further than the majority; one is the dissenting opinion from the Ugandan judge; and the final one ("Separate Opinion") is from the Israeli Judge ad hoc Barak, who I thought made good points (including mention of some Israeli arguments) though ultimately I would side with the majority.
"A number of coalition politicians expressed opposition to Judge Barak’s appointment following the announcement, including Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who distanced himself from the decision Monday. “Putting the keys in the hands of Aharon Barak, who is an honorable man, is a mistake,” Smotrich told reporters ahead of his Religious Zionism party’s faction meeting in the Knesset. “This is a decision made by the prime minister without consulting us.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-allies-fume-netanyahu-defends-tapping-right-wing-bogeyman-barak-for-icj-case/
"5. With regard to the Court’s prima facie jurisdiction, Judge ad hoc Barak is doubtful whether South Africa brought this dispute in good faith. After South Africa sent a Note Verbale to Israel on 21 December 2023, concerning the situation in Gaza, Israel replied with an offer to engage in consultations at the earliest possible opportunity. South Africa, instead of accepting this offer, which could have led to fruitful diplomatic talks, decided to institute proceedings against Israel before this Court. He regrets that Israel’s attempt to open a dialogue was met with the filing of an application."
Not really!
I thought Professor Shaw for Israel was the best advocate in either hearing, but given the comprehensive undermining of his "no dispute" arguments by his own colleagues, he was in a pretty hopeless position.
In my view, Israel's optimal legal strategy and its optimal PR strategy were mutually contradictory, and in trying to have its cake and eat it too Israel paid the price of such hubris. ;)
Not sure I get what you mean - elaborate?
For South Africa to have legal standing, to be allowed to submit to the ICJ, it first had to have declared a dispute with Israel over its actions. Only once unresolved, does it go to the ICJ. Normally the process would've been formal than it was.
"Excuse" was a poor choice of word because it would have to work either way. I don;t know the minds of the judges.
Ah ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, i heard some buzz about that. Werent the south africans saying that the israeli lack of response to their 84-page document was cause to go to the ICJ?
I don't recall. Anyways, the Law is sometimes about bullshit loopholes instead of substance, and thankfully the ICJ went for the latter.
Originally South Africa declared to boycott Isreali goods. To hit these Zionists in the purse is the greatest blow of all.
Now if we could take away their Victim Card for 60 days.......
Yes, John may have some interesting thoughts: but remember, he says all IR theories are simplifications and so if he's right 70% of the time he's pretty happy. I expect this could be just another exception that proves the general rule. After all, occasionally puppets can do unusual things if the puppeteers stop paying attention to the audience. ;)
I respectfully recommend that apart from the main judgment, which clearly explains the Court's majority reasoning, you also read the additional five (short!) judgments appended to the formal Order. i.e. at pp10-13 of https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf. Interestingly, three of them ("Declarations") are from judges who arguably wanted to go further than the majority; one is the dissenting opinion from the Ugandan judge; and the final one ("Separate Opinion") is from the Israeli Judge ad hoc Barak, which I thought made good points though ultimately I would side with the majority.
To fully understand those judgments (if interested!!), you probably also need to refer to the transcript of both hearings, because as usual the majority judgment covered only the arguments key to the majority findings. In particular the crucial "plausibility" point was very well argued by both sides, and I had no idea which way the Court would rule. In my view the Court may have departed from precedent, as even common law Courts routinely do in order to promote certainty. However, I think if the Court had been persuaded by Israel's argument, Provisional Measures would be ended forever. I also thought Professor Shaw for Israel was the best advocate in either hearing, but given the comprehensive undermining of his "no dispute" arguments by his own colleagues, he was in a pretty hopeless position. Israel's optimal legal strategy and its optimal propaganda strategy were mutually exclusive, and in trying to have its cake and eat it too Israel paid the price of such hubris. ;)
Enforcement? Of course that is up to the State in question (unless someone uses it at the UN to create a casus belli). Ultimately, and by definition, failure to self-enforce is the test of whether such a nation becomes routinely viewed as a "rogue state". :)
I expected the Western media to restate results that made lemonade from Israel's lemons. I did not anticipate the absolute "business as usual" doubling down on Khan Younis, or that the West would halt UNRWA funds on an unsubstantiated Israeli claim of Oct. 7 complicity. It is concerning that an international court of law makes a strong statement, only to see it ignored with no repercussions. My birth country still stands with this rogue Israel, and it brings shame to us all.
I knew Israel would have to run Gazan's up and down the strip in order to get Hamas. They just don't have enough troops to do it any other way. Whatever they do, they will be condemned as inhumane too.
Wonder what would have happened to Japan or Germany had they continued a low-grade gureurilla war following their loss in WW2?
Robert E. Lee, in explaining his decision to surrender at Appomatix to his Generals said, that releasing the men would lead to great destruction of the South. He was right.
After the Civil War, the US set up camps for slaves who were destitute. They could be fed but they found that they did not like having their freedom restrained so they said they had to stay at the camps to get food and shelter. They left and survived despite great difficulties. I'm not expert on this; I think it was a snippet from Shelby Foote's books on Civil War but it may have been someone else.
One has to stop fighting when one loses a war or bad things will happen. The Palestinians in Gaza have lived in welfare too long.
As an additional source of information, I would suggest you read Norman Finkelstein's, "Gaza, An Inquest into it's Martyrdom". It goes from Britain's postwar landgrab in the late '40s, the invitation to Zionist European Jews, a Western European government established which morphed into an apartheid society, and a legacy of aggressive wars and pogroms against their primarily Muslim neighbors and captive regions (Palestine) This genocide has been ongoing and supported by the U.S. and other lesser Western powers. Israel is a little, bitter strip of land currently populated by a cult of supremacy and war. Please do some reading -- erasing a civilization, especially when you have been an unwelcome guest for over 70 years, cannot be allowed in the modern world.
I am very familiar with the history. I do not blame Palestinians for fighting initially but a time for making peace comes and it has long since past. Gaza is a welfare state; the West and Arab countries paid a good chunk of the cost for those tunnels and weapons. One would expect a little appreciation for such aid. It's a real quandry; is there an obligation to feed people who constantly engage in war? Historically, there certainly has not been but there may be an obligation to do so today; do you know?
So what if they have tunnels and weapons? Israel has tunnels and weapons too. If you occupy, subjugate, and enslave people, expect resistance.
So why build the tunnels under residential buildings, hospitals, etc.?
Interesting that you would mention slavery. Care to support that statement because I'm pretty sure the West and Arab countries are providing money for food, medical care, housing, etc. in a primo location on the Mediteranian Sea in return for no services/products.
So what if residential buildings have tunnels? I have a basement at home. So what if hospitals have tunnels? Hospitals around the world have tunnels and underground car parking many levels deep. That kind of mentality is like a parent trying to control every aspect of its adult child.
Gazans were allowed to do factory work, and nursery work for sub par wages. They would be monitored coming and going. All passages in Gaza were fitted with high tech cameras, and satellites were actively observed movements. Yes, the Israeli government knew about the war practices Hamas was doing for some time. They did nothing to stop it. Please see some of Abby Martins documentaries -- very pertinent.
I thought the IDF had built most of the tunnels pre-2004? Which would explain their high quality.
Many of the subterranean passages were in fact built by Israel when they were compelled to provide housing after stealing the Palestinian land and forcing the owners into Gaza. By international law, if you are an occupying force (Israel) water, power and sufficient food stuffs must be provided to the captive population. Gazans could not leave, could not obtain passports. Israel stopped water, lights, all electricity, fuel, medicines and food. They stopped all aid trucks, and only allowed a trickle. Bear in mind, the welfare, as you call it, was mandated by the United Nations, as their fishing industry, fruit and olive groves were all destroyed by Israel. It has been 70 years of oppression. No simple answers when dealing with an apartheid state
There is a teeny tiny element of truth in what you said but overall you are a liar or seriously misinformed. There were some tunnels built under hospitals when Israel was there; they had the drawings. Here is a video from 14 years ago. Smuggling was the primary reason it got started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfxq3qB05rQ
If DW documentaries (German) were allowed to film, it was approved by the IDF. Israel had maps of tunnels and access to the same sonar used in mine shafts to find survivors of collapse. Instead, they strafed with 2,000 lb. American bunker busters, regardless of lives lost, to close the shafts. The early stone and concrete block refugee camps often predate the hospitals -- How do you think they knew which tunnels to gas? Of course, they killed their own hostages, sadly. Ask any Palestinian about those tunnels -- most would say they protect from Israeli attacks -- smuggling would be a perk. With no employment, no freedom outside of the walled encampment, they were out of alternatives. Bear in mind, the UN outlawed the wall, as well.
So you are pro Genocide. Thankfully your murder porn friends are beginning to hide and delete their past.
Yes, the United States is definitely liable for committing genocide!
This is clearly stated in the ICF’s Order: Anyone is liable who's involved in an act of conspiracy to commit genocide; or is complicit in genocide acts.
“Pursuant to Article III of the Genocide Convention, the following acts are also prohibited by the Convention: conspiracy to commit genocide (Article III, para. (d)) and complicity in genocide (Article III, para. (e))”
The judges of ICJ do not nominally represent countries or the UN. They try to represent the truth not politics or policy.
Yet, in practice, that's rarely how acronyms "for the world" work.
Uganda has denounced their judge. I'm sure many will wonder if she was bought.
Having spent decades living in four African countries it is reasonable to conclude that the judge may have been profitably coerced. Although given the coercion in American politics and the White House, perhaps, as they do for most American politicians, The Mossad just had some very interesting photos.
My South Africa is for sale too, so I understand being jaded. I believe greed and bribery makes half the world go round in the wrong direction.
South Africa does have problems. but mistakes were made during apartheid which made them inevitable. It will take time for the society/culture to evolve beyond mere tribalism. One of the problems with colonial rule, for that is what apartheid was and is, is that it encourages division into familial and tribal groups. This suits the colonial ruler of course but lays the foundation for future problems. This is also why fundamentalist forms of religion thrive when people are oppressed. If you treat humans badly they will look for security in some form of system which provides it and tribalism and religion are the most common.
"This is also why fundamentalist forms of religion thrive when people are oppressed."
Thank you, that's very perceptive. It's also consistent with Tom Holland's Dominion and his interesting characterization of Christianity as the ultimate victimhood (and thus, amusingly, "woke") religion.
I would argue that mere *perception* of oppression is also sufficient. Which may be why populism, anti-social media, and fundamentalism go so well together. Cheers! :)
Well, since we know that the body responds 'physiologically to what we believe and think then it makes sense that a perception of oppression would create a physical fear response. It might be very powerful for some but not quite as powerful as living with constant fear as in a war zone, but yes, it would still have an impact and stimulate a need/desire to find a way to create a sense of security, order and safety which is where religions come in. Or as you say, any system which creates boundaries and a sense of security.
This is of course the role and purpose, albeit unconscious largely, of tribalism. The group holds together because of the structure of the system and its rules which represent boundaries. Behind the boundaries, or the psychological and emotional 'fence' there is a sense of safety. Some people need this more than others.
When humans are committed to and involved in a system for any reason it is a powerful distraction from daily fears and as part of a group/system, there is a sense of comfort, of being protected,i.e. the 'being looked after by a powerful daddy effect.' I suspect the effect is greater in those who, for whatever reasons, have lower levels of maturity. We know that children and teenagers, while they fight against it, do better if they have recognisable boundaries against which they can bounce. This suggest the less mature an adult is, then the greater the need for rigid or clearly identifiable boundaries.
I might be wrong about that but it would be interesting to study such qualities in those drawn to fundamentalist systems, whether religious or not.
Colonialism did do that but let's not forget that tribalism was here before colonialism. I also see my country's transition more as a financial transaction than a moral. And the 30 years of corruption isn't forgiven because there were once wicked Whities.
Tribalism is still with us but in more evolved and enlightened societies to lesser degrees. It takes time to move beyond tribalism which was in past times necessary for survival.
The less evolved societies are the more tribalistic they remain. This is why religions tend to be tribal and the more orthodox the more tribal they are.
The tribe has limited capacity for community consciousness because everyone beyond the tribe is other. In places like India and Africa, self first, then immediate family, then extended family and the rest are irrelevant. There is little capacity for community consciousness despite the fantasies woven by Wokerati in this age.
Religions also tend to be tribal because a tribal mentality unites and binds people together. Judaism is particularly tribal because the religion, unfortunately has turned past suffering into theological dogma where the tribe is an eternal victim and every member of the tribe victimised, whether they are or not.
Any 'tribal' group which gains power politically, corporately or in any form will look after itself regardless of the harm done to others. In fact tribalism makes it very difficult to relate to and understand others who are in essence shunned from the group. Most of this is unconscious and therefore unrecognised. Of course there are exceptions but they are rarely able to change the tribal group unless there are enough of them.
So, tribalism is a part of human nature and human function, but, in an enlightened world should not be dominant in governance or society.
Yes, why Uganda, it makes very little sense. That fact will make a great article.
“The judges do not represent the UN?”
The ICJ is the legal arm of the UN. The 15 judges are elected by the UN general assembly and security council.
That is the goal, but the goal of UNWRA was to provide aid to Gazans and there are plausible allegations that they have staff that participated in October 7th terrorist incident. It is possible that certain judges do not have as their goal reaching the proper ruling based on the evidence and law and fallible human judgement is involved in evaluating both as well. Courts are imperfect but they are the best we've got.
Allegations are not proof. Israel lies through its teeth all the time. And even if every UNWRA worker was a Palestinian Resistance supporter, that is no reason to punish the population.
Have Gazan officials admitted that they accidentially bombed a hospital and blamed Israel for it yet? Such a simple thing to do; admit we made a mistake.
International military experts have studied the video of the missile and deemed the trajectory made it very clear it came from the Israelis. Israel has been playing the lying game for so long, bombing hospitals and blaming Hamas, they are too stupid to realise that in this age there is usually video footage of their bombs. Such a simple thing to do, admit that Israel bombed the hospital and all the others instead of trying to blame the Palestinian Resistance.
Regarding friction in the comment section, it may be useful to know Hamas' side of the story. It's unsurprising that the document they issued last week was either not reported on, or only fragments were mentioned. Here it is in full - https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/oct-7-hamas-tells-their-side-of-the
Being held in a prison without access to water,food, power while family and friends are murdered is enough info for me. IF you did this to me, I would find you and in the end it would be you or me. There is no other choice.
I'd make peace for the good of my children. No one in Israeli prisons is doing without food, water and power. Maybe the occasional "rough interrogation," but more to fear from your fellow captives than the Israelis.
Agreed.
Thank you!
Wasn't this the court that refused to allow the playing of video/film showing the Hamas atrocities on Israeli citizens on Oct 7 even though it was critical evidence?
Also, Did the court order all hostages taken by Hamas to be immediately released?
The ICJ can only decide on the case brought to it, which is about charges of genocide on Israel. Like any legal proceedings, courts do not address whataboutism.
The court did not order Israel to cease fire because it would mean ordering Hamas as well. But the ICJ does not have jurisdiction over Hamas.
The court can only order a State to ceasefire and the Palestinian Resistance is not a State but a resistance militia. Hamas is simply a part of the Palestinian Resistance which has not signed onto the Geneva Conventions as Israel has and therefore does not come under the ICJ jurisdiction.
The court basically said, there is a case for genocide and Israel is on notice that evidence will be gathered for the trial and it will be held accountable for any acts of genocide. In other words, Israel has to stop slaughtering civilians.
And how is it known who is a civilian and who is Hamas given that Hamas uses civilians and civilian infrastructure as shields? Or do you think that this is not true?
Is that really a serious question? As of writing, more than 10,000 children have been killed by Israel. Let’s not count the women to simplify things. Half of those probably can’t even spell Hamas. If you are a soldier who can’t differentiate between a child and a militant, you’d probably kill your own men.
You must be a better shot than me!
Actually, your post wasn't serious as most deaths are not by shooting guns. You take an RPG shot from a building, you then fire a round of artillary at the building. If a child is in the building they likely die.
You trace a rocket fired from the backyard of a building you level the building. Any child there will die.
The question in my mind is how is Israel developing their targets and I do not fully know.
When a people are crushed under military rule by an invader, occupier, coloniser then everyone is involved, mentally or physically, in the fight for freedom and justice. There may be some exceptions but not many. Most French supported the French Resistance and most Palestinians support the Palestinian Resistance for the same reasons.
The Hamas is to blame for everything trope is tedious, childish and stupid. As to using civilian infrastructure as shields, shall we dip a toe into the real world and logic? Radical I know.
A Resistance army is founded, formed, entrenched within the civilian population for there is no other choice. Never was, never will be.
And Gaza is a prison, a concentration camp, a ghetto created by Israel. If the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas are using the people of Gaza as shields then you are saying anyone who fought to be free from a concentration camp in WWII was using the other prisoners as shields and the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were also used as shields by their fighters.
Can you not see how utterly ridiculous your position is?
Wow, you don't even believe that. You might want to delete that. History will make you look both, bad and ........
Ok....evidence in the current court is "whataboutism". A platypus court?
Much of their "evidence" is sketchy. Like those beheaded babies and the kids baked in the ovens? Their lies are well documented.
Did Hamas commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on Oct 7 and did Hamas itself film their committing these atrocities? And wasn't those atrocities the catalyst for the current war?
October 7 has so fat not been investigated by objective, third-party adjudicators. One if the major suspects in terms of possibly setting it all up and then holding back military responses, is Benjamin Netanyahu. The evidence that so many Israelis were killed by the IDF, is huge.
You do realize people will read your Pro Murder Porn comments right?
No. Maybe. No. Go away.
Sigh. If someone murders a member of your family, would you let the judicial system take its course or would you burn their entire neighborhood? When you then get taken to court, would it be relevant that someone from your family suffered first? Would that excuse your extra-judicial vendetta carried out against people who weren’t even responsible?
Your example is valid but It does make a difference in terms of punishment. Someone rapes your child and you kill them in a building across town, you will be convicted of something but it will likely be something like manslaughter and not much jail time. Kill the rapists child and it is obviously a different story. There is a spectrum.
Israel hasn’t just killed the rapist’s child, it has burned down the village the rapist lived in. It has branded all the people in the village, including the children, guilty. That’s very different to a manslaughter. It’s genocide.
If the facts are as you state, I would agree. I do not believe those are the facts but maybe I will ultimately be proven to be wrong.
So much the Israelis called evidence has been debunked as outright lies that nothing the Israelis say would be trusted by any relatively intelligent and sane individual.
Did Hamas commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on Oct 7 and did Hamas itself film their committing these atrocities? And weren't those atrocities the catalyst for the current war?
No, only if they had time to film Israelis committing them, no. Do go away.
One of the catalysts is that Hamas captured Israelis and kept them alive to force a negotiation from inside their lifetime prison sentences handed out to Palestinians by the Israel government for no other reason than their sense of Jewish supremacy.
Iirk the catalyst were the provocations at Al Aqsa , on 4 oct , not to mention the usual anually deathtoll of 200-300 palestinians .
Good post John! However, the ICJ didn’t facilitate ceasefire. By not asking for a ceasefire, they indirectly allowed the continuation of the massacre after 25000+ have already died and more are dying fast. In any case ICJ apparently does not have any consequential significance, as their grand ruling has been already trashed and the same old atrocities are continuing. As almost everyone knows, the ultra wealthy lobbies are running the show here and unfortunately they will call the shots. All others are just helplessly watching.
The ruling has only been trashed by Israelis who live whole lifetimes of contempt for Goys, even the angelic ones in South Africa that brought this long overdue charge against chronic genocidaires.
What does that have to do with the genocide convention and the south african case against israel?
This here thing called "evidence"??????????????????????
Atrocities do not jusify genocide. The question of this case has very little to do with october 7th, it has to do with whether or not the Israeli state is committing or likely to commit genocide, regardless of their reasons.
Investigate 10/7! Stop Netanyahu's cover up!
Did Hamas commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on Oct 7 and did Hamas itself film their committing these atrocities? And wasn't those atrocities the catalyst for the current war?
BTW, the ICJ did not issue a ruling for a ceasefire.
Yes and yes. The question isnt whether or not israel is justified in going to war, the question is whether or not israel is conducting its war justly. Jus ad bellum versus jus in bello.
nitpick: technically the ICJ case is about the genocide convention, though more generally your point is good. ;)
That was the key issue in my mind. I don't know that the war against Hamas is the right strategy, only time will tell, but I was greatly relieved that Israel can continue.
The court held that the evidence of genocide was plausible and Israel has to make reports and do things like allow aid in. I'm not fully sure of what actions Israel is taking, and I know that Egypt is part of the equation. I did not view the court ruling as a judgement and as with any war, there will be soldiers who violate rules of engagement either out of fear or intentionally.
Israel is in the same basic position that they were prior to the ruling but they will be slowed down some by the need to maintain documentation which is a headache when things are moving fast but they can and will deal with it in an appropriate fashion but mistakes will occasionally occur.
You two should get a room.
"I did not view the court ruling as a judgement"
You're right, though perhaps for the wrong reasons! :) Actually there were six judgments. One fully explained majority judgment, plus five others at pp10-13 of https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-sum-01-00-en.pdf: three "declarations" from judges who wanted to go further than the majority; one from the Ugandan dissenter; and one "separate opinion" by Judge ad hoc Barak.
Israel is not in the same position. The decent people of the world now have every basis to see it as the pariah nation, the baby killer nation.
Israel has been repeatedly shown to lie and fabricate 'evidence.' In this age it is easy to mock up and doctor videos and from my understanding such evidence will not be accepted by the court because its focus is entirely on legality and not evidence which may or may not be fabricated. and which anyway, cannot be forensically reduced to a legal position. The case had to be put by Israel, in legal terms, as to why it was not committing genocide and clearly it failed because it is. Israel showing photos of what it claimed was evidence does not cut it in any legal sense.
Did Hamas commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on Oct 7 and did Hamas itself film their committing these atrocities?
As to your question. Hamas probably did not commit atrocities against Israeli citizens on October 7.
One Israeli soldier was on video early in the piece, although it has probably been disappeared, saying, it was not Hamas/Palestinian Resistance who attacked civilians but Palestinian civilians who had broken out of Gaza behind the Resistance fighters. He also said the fighters were targeting police and soldiers, not civilians and both of those are legitimate targets under occupation.
This makes more sense. the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas are actually well trained and professional and their goal was to target soldiers and police and to take hostages. Wasting time attacking civilians would reduce their capacity to achieve their goal of taking as many hostages as possible from the occupying forces.
As to whether or not activities were filmed, logic says, not by the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas as they had far more important things to do, but certainly likely for the civilians who broke out after them. This group comprised young men, mostly around the age of 20, which is what one would expect. It is perfectly possible that some of this group did commit atrocities and it was filmed.
What needs to be remembered is that those around the age of 20 would have grown up from the time they were toddlers pretty much, being subjected to sonic booms to mentally torment and torture the prisoners in Gaza and regular bombing raids by Israel which tore apart family, friends, homes and lives. Israel removed illegal Jewish settlers from Gaza, and settled them illegally in other parts of Palestine, in 2005 and turned Gaza into a concentration camp, the world's largest open-air prison. That is 18 years of torture, torment, death, blood, fear and horror - the only world those young men had known.
These young men had a childhood of horrific violence and constant fear inflicted on them by the Israelis. One can safely assume that a few of them would be less than mentally stable. Blame Israel for that.
An American Jewish writer made the comment in an article, probably also disappeared by now, that if the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto had broken out and found Germans dancing and partying at a music festival just outside their prison walls, that they would no doubt have attacked them as well.
So, to answer your question, yes, there probably were atrocities committed, yes there probably were events filmed, by not by Hamas/Palestinian Resistance, but by the very damaged young prisoners who followed them out when they broke down the fence.
However, any films coming from the Israelis are likely to be fabricated and should be dismissed.
If it is as you say, would Hamas cooperate in investigation and prosecution of those civilians? Here is an example of the level of lying that Hamas leaders engage in. Maybe he is just deluded; I don't know but I think he is a liar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV_9EsGbB2o
Again, not particularly relevant to the case. The question isnt "are israels actions understandable and justified" the question is "do israels actions amount to a violation of the genocide convention"
You are right that it is not relevant to the case but it is relevant to you as an individual commenting on the case. If you deny that Hamas did not commit atrocities and kill civilians, I would immediately stop reading anything you said as you are not a serious person or are blind with rage.
Not as many atrocities as Israel committed against its own citizens.
https://thegoodcitizen.live/p/october-7-2023
Not relevant to the case. Israel claims they did but then Israel says the ICJ is a Hamas tool. Nothing Israel says can be trusted. Many of its most hyperbolic charges have been debunked,. i.e. headless babies, microwaved babies, and babies hung on lines. Even claims of rape have not been proven and the Israeli police have said they cannot find witnesses or evidence for the claims.
Evidence of what? Hamas?
The ICJ has received all evidence brought to it from both sides. It has heard all arguments from both sides. Based on these, the ICJ was able to decide on a ruling.
You forgot the word "provisional." You also forgot to mention that they did not rule on the evidence beyond saying it was "plausible." If one wants to take that as a major defeat of Israel's position, I'm completely fine with that position even if I might disagree with it.
I believe Israel wanted the court to not have jurisdiction; they did completely lose on that issue and I'm o.k. with the court ruling that way.
>”I believe Israel wanted the court to not have jurisdiction; they did completely lose on that issue”
They lost on that issue. The ICJ decided it has jurisdiction on the case thus the ruling.
That is what I was trying to say.
Whether the ruling will come back to result in negative ramifications someday is an interesting question that I do not know the answer to.
In legalese the word 'plausible' is powerful. It says there is a case to be made for genocide and further investigation will take place before it goes to trial.
Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions on genocide and so the court does have jurisdiction over the Zionist State. The court does not have the power to force Israel to comply but the UN can certainly initiate sanctions.
The Palestinian Resistance is not a State and not a signatory so the court cannot demand a ceasefire from them. However, what the ICJ wants is for Israel to stop slaughtering civilians and it can keep fighting the Palestinian Resistance if it chooses, but it must stop its genocide.
Israel could not last a week if its ports and airports were closed and all goods in and out of the country were halted. Boycotts are increasing and sanctions will follow. Not all countries but enough to destroy the Israeli economy which is already in tatters from this colonial war waged to maintain occupation, colonisation and apartheid.
South Africa was bigger, richer, stronger and more self sufficient than Israel and it could not hold out.
The court does not allow such video evidence and since it was from Israel it was hardly going to be reliable. But, quite simply, such so-called evidence is not allowed to be presented. Neither does the court have the remit to order all hostages taken by the Palestinian Resistance to be immediately released. The Resistance is not a State or a signatory and Israel is both. The court should have ordered Israel to release all 6 million of its hostages, by ending the occupation, and release the more than 10,000 it has imprisoned without charge but that is not in its remit either.
The main case will be the best path towards exposing the genocidal motive for the propaganda. When its shown that Israel inflated the effects of Hamas' attack in order to validate its violence, Zionism will be damaged.
Zionism is already damaged. It equates with Nazism and unfortunately the Star of David equates with the Swastika.
It is.
Legend of a man
See my blog '‘South Africa’s case is legally watertight’ on the 'International Humanitarian Law & Mediation' page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com. NB what SA's counsel Vaughan Lowe KC argued:
1st – The exercise of the right of self-defence cannot justify or be a defence to genocide &
2nd – The prohibition of genocide is not an ordinary rule of international law: it is jus cogens – an overriding fundamental principle, at all times and without exception, for all humanity,
I wrote - 'provided the burden of proof has been discharged on the other threshold issues, i.e. ‘dispute; ‘jurisdiction’; ‘actus reus’; and ‘intention’, for which South Africa adduced overwhelming primary evidence from credible sources, including the Israeli Government and the IDF themselves, then it’s application for provisional measures which must satisfy the legal test of ‘plausibility’, is legally watertight, as the core principles mentioned above are not legally capable of any rebuttal.' - My reading of the ICJ judgment is:
1. 'Jurisdiction' - has been accepted.
2. 'Actus reus' - the court accepted that SA's case is plausible. So if Israel does not restrain itself SA can invite the court to issue further provisional measures ['PM']. Every PM ordered by the ICJ bangs a further nail into the coffin lid of Israel's defence on actus reus.
3. 'Intention' - this will be a battleground at trial, however the court named 3 senior figures who have made statements inciting genocide. Therefore if Israel does nothing to investigate & prosecute it will be in breach of a provisional measure which its own ad hoc judge voted in favour of. So, the court is putting Israel to a test by calling its bluff.
If Vaugham Lowe is correct on 'jus cogens' and I consider that he is, NB my blog on the same page about 'jus cogens', and what Israel's counsel Malcolm Shaw KC wrote on p. 317 of the '8th edition of his book 'International Law (2017) - 'The [ICJ] in the Bosnain Genocide case reaffirmed in its Order of 8 April 1993 on provisional measures the view expressed in the Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Genocide Convention that the crime of genocide "shocks the conscience of mankind, results in great losses to hummanity ... and is contrary to the moral law and to the spirit and aims of the United Nation."...' In my blog I quote from an article by Criddle & Evan-Fox in which they state, 'Lauterpacht asserted that peremptory norms derive their unique legal authority from two interrelated sources – international morality and general principles of state practice. In Lauterpacht’s view, overriding principles of international law may be regarded as constituting principles of international public order (ordre international public). These principles [may] be expressive of rules of international morality so cogent that an international tribunal would consider them forming a part of those principles of law generally recognised by civilised nations which the ICJ is bound to apply [under] it’s statute.'
So looking at Israel's defence in the round, one plank i.e. jurisdiction has fallen away, another plank i.e. 'actus reus' may fall away within one month, a third plank i.e. 'intention' is being tested by calling Israel's bluff, and on the technical issues of 'jus cogens' & 'erga omnes' Israel does not appear to have a plank to stand on. So if Israel maintains the intensity of its military operations in Gaza it will lose at trial, i.e. Israel is on track to be found guilty of the core international crime of genocide.
I recognize what Hamas did was totally unacceptable, but I also wonder why Israel was negligent in ignoring the warnings, and even had in its possession the plans that Hamas was going to implement. Although there were false claims, like Hamas raped women and killed babies what they did was unjustifiable. Perhaps as in the past they expected retaliation, but didn't expect it to occur on this level. Watching the Israeli assault on Gaza leaves no question in my mind that Israel is implementing a genocide. One only need to look at what's going on in the West Bank, watch the killings, and destruction, as well as taking over large swaths of land to build Jewish settlements and emptying out the lives of the Palestinians, and displacing them. I think the US is also culpable in implementing this genocide since without the US Israel doesn't have the bombs to implement this degree of destruction. I don't know if this will affect Netanyahu's position and those in his extreme right wing cabinet, since they have already gone too far. I think anyone who tries to justify what is happening to the Palestinians due to what Hamas did no doubt views Palestinian lives with the same distain that Israel has done since it's inception in 1948.
It cannot yet be fully determined that what Hamas did was unacceptable.
1. That would make all revolutionary groups fighting for freedom from tyranny guilty.
2. Israel has deliberately concealed what happened that day, which suggests they lied, and Hamas may be telling the truth.
The retaliatory responses by Israel have always been extreme, and I never saw the benefit in regard to the Palestinian people. I understand what you're saying, and I think the world this time will not forgive Israel for this assault. She's already lost. However Palestine may also be gone, since they have implemented so much destruction, so much death. I do think it will allow people to be more open about their take on Israel without being labeled an anti-Semite. I'm also hoping it will destroy, or greatly lessen AIPAC's grip on the American government. When you say Israel has deliberately concealed what happened what are you referring to? I think, since they were forewarned they may have let it happen, so they could implement a genocide. Can't say for sure, but it's a feeling I have.
We need an independent investigation into the cause of death of every Israeli that died, and then their occupation. There's sufficient evidence that Israel killed some of its own, but we need a proper accounting. I added a comment to all, a link to Hamas statement that few have read.
Well, from the beginning I knew their account was riddled with lies. rapes, babies killed, no. Max Blumenthal covered a lot of this from the beginning. I know that Israeli soldiers fired into buildings and told to do so, killing civilians as well. The count came down from the beginning by 200 since they were Palestinians soldiers that were killed. Those at the park are suing Israel for their slow response, and they immediately cleared that area, which makes me wonder and Hamas denied killing the people in the park which were more then several hundred. I agree and most of all make the public aware of exactly what happened. I don't know if you saw this but it interesting and does make you wonder about things. The Fence, on Frontline.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/failure-at-the-fence/
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israeli-hq-ordered-troops-shoot-israeli-captives-7-october#translation
I did see it, thanks. Keep in mind that there's always a fog of war. The Israeli public may overwhelmingly be screaming for Palestinian blood but that will subside, they'll feel guilty, and will blame their government. That ensures a period of chaos, and investigation.
Palestine is not gone. They rebuilt Dresden and they will rebuild Gaza City. Otherwise agree with you.
Indeed
https://thegoodcitizen.live/p/october-7-2023
I'm a subscriber :)
Why was what the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas did totally unacceptable? Let us put aside the unproven Israeli claims of atrocities by the Resistance and look at the facts. They broke out of the Gaza prison with the goal of targeting soldiers and police, all of which is legitimate under occupation, and with the goal of taking hostages which is also legitimate given it is the only language Israel has ever understood.
All of that happened because Israel has subjected the Palestinians to the longest holocaust in modern history and the most cruel and evil occupation and colonisation in modern history.
When and if the atrocity claims against the Palestinian Resistance/Hamas are proven, then you can say they were unacceptable. However, the totally unacceptable thing, regardless is Israel'sd human rights atrocities and war crimes over 75 years to maintain occupation, colonisation and apartheid.
Trust me I very much support the Palestinian cause, and always have. Well, at least according to most sources Israelis were killed, and some taken hostage. I understand what you're saying, but when this happens Israel retaliates with such a vengeance that many more Palestinians die, now they are using it to implement a genocide. The Nambian genocide implemented by the Germans in the latter part of the 19th century was due to an uprising that killed over 100 Germans, they too had enough since their land was taken over by the Germans and they were relegated to a reserve. The consequences for them were most is not all their people were killed, some 90, 000. Germany finally fessed up to committing the genocide rather recently. I really felt the retaliatory response would be big, since Netanyahu needs a reason to stay otherwise his ass would be in jail. He's corrupt. Why didn't they wait till after he was convicted? Now he has what he always wanted, a one state solution., and time out of jail. Taking hostages also is going to bring a greater reaction, and it has. Not that I don't understand why things like this are done, but really bad timing, and I don't believe in killing people, though don't ask me what the alternative is. Well, if Israel didn't have America they wouldn't be able to bomb the hell out of them, so the US is also culpable. Since Israel was forewarned of an upcoming attack a year before it happened and even had their plans, but ignored them, as well as people monitoring the Gaza border reporting suspicious behavior, also ignored, and then Egypt warned them several days before of an impending attack, and once again ignored. Maybe they knew it was going to happen and let it in order to implement their plans for a genocide. I just don't know Roslyn.
It is irrelevant if the Israelis thought they could play an evil game and exterminate more Palestinians. Israel would need to rid the land of 6 million Palestinian Muslims and Christians and that is such a bad look.
And, as we have seen, it is damn hard to exterminate people even if you think they are cockroaches. In three months 30,000 dead in the Gaza prison and 350 in the rest of Occupied Palestine. To knock off 6 million would need real organisation and the fact is, the world would not tolerate it.
And, even if Israel could eradicate 6 million Palestinians it would also need to exterminate 2 million who are second class citizens in Israel and the 8 million in the Diaspora. It is absolutely impossible for Israel to kill 16 million people for that is the only way Palestinian Resistance could ever end. Oh, it could end in a two or one state solution but not enough blood for the Zionistas and probably much too logical for their addled minds.
"In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly" You don't have to kill them all. You can destroy their entire infrastructure, not only homes, but hospitals, schools, universities, etc. Turn their land to rubble. No food, no drugs, especially in an area highly prone to infectious disease with unclean water, yep that's a genocide. The West Bank if you read about is just about gone.
Ethnic Cleansing Was Always the Zionist Plan
in Palestine
by Ellen Isaacs
IDF Israel Palestine Gaza
“Thin” the Palestinian population “to a minimum.”1
“I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it. “2
Can you guess who said which one? Which is Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, in 1938, and which is Netanyahu this week referring to Gaza? Well, the first one is the more recent, but you can see that the plan has not changed. And Netanyahu’s appointees say much the same.
His finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, said last March that “Palestinians don’t exist” and called for more “sterile” – Palestinian free – zones in the West Bank (WB). Others have said it is now Gaza Nakba 2023, referring to the mass expulsions of five out of seven Palestinians from Israel as it became a state in 1948.2a On October 13, +972 Magazine published an Israeli intelligence document which concludes:
The evacuation of the civilian population from Gaza to Sinai…will yield positive, long-term strategic outcomes for Israel, and is an executable option. It requires determination from the political echelon in the face of international pressure, with an emphasis on harnessing the support of the United States.
And the idea goes even farther back than these examples. Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, said in 1895: “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border…while denying it any employment in our country….Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”3
Many other Israeli politicians have also asserted the necessity of removing all Palestinians. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Housing Minister Eitam said in 1950:
“We’ll have to expel the overwhelming majority of West Bank Arabs from here.”
In 1980 Israel published the Drobles Plan, which stated that the goal was to “remove any trace of doubt about our intention to control to control Judea and Samaria (what Israel calls the WB) forever.”
Netanyahu’s opponent, Avigdor Lieberman, said in 2009 that Israel’s Palestinian citizens should be stripped of their citizenship unless they pledged loyalty to a Jewish state. In polls from 2015-7 that asked Israelis if Israeli Arabs and West Bank Palestinians should be expelled from Israel, 32-58% said yes.
https://countercurrents.org/2023/12/ethnic-cleansing-was-always-the-zionist-plan/
It is very easy to trace genocidal statements for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians back through not just all of Israel's brief history but all of Zionism's longer history from the 1890's.
As to the West Bank being just about gone, with 4 million Palestinians remaining in what is euphemistically called the West Bank so Israel does not have to say Palestine and can pretend it is an outer suburb of Tel Aviv, the facts on the ground cannot simply be exterminated.
When the Zionists planned to rid Palestine of non-Jews, it was in a time when racism toward Arabs was common in Europe and the Zionists were, despite being atheists, still ardent believers, zealots in fact, that any smidge of Jewish ancestry created a superior human being - they had in short, tickets on themselves and their hubris was immense. They rejected the religion and its God but kept some of the most primitive and barbaric teachings as part of their fascist, racist, political system.
Zionist Israel is and always was a colonial nightmare which should never have happened. Indeed, if such a colonial venture were mooted today it would be shouted down as racist, elitist, unjust. Time to shout it down once and for all.
This will tell you how many Palestinians can live in an area and how Israel controls what goes on since Abbas attends to very little and Israel is taking their land, displacing them little by little and yes it can be done, and it's going on now, and for a very long time. Not to mention they are killing some one hundred or more each year and no one is held accountable not even the settlers. Not a big number, but live with the fear who is next. They drive through their streets and tear them up, no reason. They are stealing their farm land, no food, hunger prevails. I don't disagree with you on what Israel is. My mother was an anti-Zionist and I heard it all growing up and her greatest fear was that ultimately this would descend into a third world war. Great, and I'm not even married back then. I heard it all my life.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-52756427
I agree that it wasn't a tentative of genocide by trying to kill them directly but seems like a tentative to displace the population from the land by destroying the infrastructure and making the place uninhabitable . Egipt refused to take them in even when pressured by the americans otherwise it could have been successful nobody stays willfully in a ruined city with no essential services
Netanyahu wants this to go on for another year, or more, and by that time how many more people killed, since he thumbs his nose at just about everyone and has no regard for the law, otherwise why is he being brought up on charges of corruption that could land him in jail? No one is going to take the Palestinians, well, if in the time he has remaining maybe they'll be so few someone will. I want to see if the snake listens to ICJ.
Read the story of Stalingrad if you want to know how resilient and resourceful humans can be. The Palestinians are tough. They have survived more than 75 years of the longest holocaust and most evil military colonial occupation in history.
Why would Egypt solve Israel's problem created by Israel. As the occupier Israel has total responsibility for the Palestinians and they will have to pay for their care and to repair all they have destroyed. Either that or boycotts and sanctions crush the Israeli economy and Zionist Israel is consigned to the colonial shite-pit of history.
Well,John at the very least ,this gives Israel a black eye. Now If We saw some scaintions against Israel, that might add some bite to this measure 🤔
In my world we take any win we can get.
Tomorrow, we'll try even harder 😃 😊 😀
Thank you, Professor. Your moral courage is truly astounding--from another era.
One thing: you mentioned in your lecture at CIS Australia (and at other times in the past, I believe) that great power politics make the U.N. irrelevant, or so beholden to the great powers that created it that it may as well be. How does this decision by the ICJ square with that assessment? Why should we care what the ICJ says when IsraelAmerica will continue to do whatever they want to do?
I have no training in law, but I wonder if, when this case gets to trial, the United States might be charged as accessory before the fact for having armed Israel with the weaponry used and having abetted the Netanyahu administration to undertake the military assault of Gaza. Biden certainly gave Israel a green light to defend itself with an offensive military operation that has grievously harmed the population that the ICJ case is all about. HWF, Mesa AZ
Yes, the United States is definitely liable for committing genocide!
This is clearly stated in the ICF’s Order: Anyone is liable who's involved in an act of conspiracy to commit genocide; or is complicit in genocide acts.
“Pursuant to Article III of the Genocide Convention, the following acts are also prohibited by the Convention: conspiracy to commit genocide (Article III, para. (d)) and complicity in genocide (Article III, para. (e))”
Suppose anything is possible but one would have to show that it was official government policy to commit genocide. I think that is unlikely in the extreme as there would be "whistleblowers" coming out of the woodwork in the US.
Actions speak louder than words. Just collate the actions and even if words are minimal, they will be hung out to dry.
I have hope that (maybe) their lies, stealing, terrifying and killing With Impunity will finally be on its last legs.
Unfortunately, if no one else stops the IDF from killing everything in Gaza, that will happen before Israel will face any significant justice.
Netanyahu had said in the 1970s: "If we do it right,
we have the chance to expel all the Arabs in the next war ...
We can take over the West Bank. We can clear the West Bank
and cleanse Jerusalem".
That is not true. Back in the '70s he supported a single state. Perhaps he was lying, but that is what he said as a young man. An incredibly bright young man too.