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

  • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    They didn’t really call for it to stop military action though. They called for it to stop doing things intended to be genocide; I predict that Israel will just disagree that it intends genocide, and keep on doing it.

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

      Ruling that the Palestinians are a protected class under the Genocide conventions is pretty big though…

      From the live thread:

      "7m ago 07.43 EST International Court of Justice orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza Judge Donoghue says the court has decided that Israel must “take all measures within its its power” to prevent all acts within the scope of the genocide convention.

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

      Israel must also take immediate measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza."

      and:

      "14m ago 07.37 EST ICJ recognises right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide Judge Donoghue, speaking now at the ICJ, said at least some rights sought by South Africa in its genocide case against Israel’s war in Gaza are plausible. She said: “A link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the court has found plausible and at least some of the provisional measures requested.”

      With the reading still ongoing, the court said it recognises the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide. Palestinians appear to be a protected group under the genocide convention, the court said.

      Friday’s ruling at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) does not deal with the core accusation of the case – whether genocide occurred – but will focus on the urgent intervention sought by South Africa."

      Also, statements by Israel are pretty fucking damning IMO:

      "20m ago 07.33 EST Judge Donoghue is detailing comments made by Israeli officials during the war, including:

      Defence minister Yoav Gallant saying he had ordered “complete siege” of Gaza City”, and later said “we will eliminate everything” and that Israel was fighting “human animals”.

      President Isaac Herzog saying, “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”."

      • fastandcurious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        So is saying that we shouldn’t kill innocent humans ‘A big deal’

        Was the world up till now thinking that Palestinians are not humans?

        Are only Jews protected under the genocide convention?

        What the fuck is going on?

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          So is saying that we shouldn’t kill innocent humans ‘A big deal’

          I know you’re being sarcastic, but yeah. The situation is so dire that having someone at least come out and say “This is wrong” is a net improvement.

        • anlumo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Israel argued that because Jews were affected by a genocide, Israel is therefore unable to commit it themselves.

        • DarkGamer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Internet warriors distorted reality and made you believe self-defense is genocide. Although terrible, what the Palestinians are experiencing right now is nothing like what the Jews experienced in world war II, which is what the genocide statutes were written to address. Were they being forced into trains and worked to death or put into gas chambers, I guarantee you they would apply.

  • BringMeTheDiscoKing@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well it certainly isn’t what Israel wanted, which was for the ICJ to throw out the case and say “what, the Jews are doing genocide? Don’t be silly!”

    But they didn’t say that which of course means they have an antisemetic bias.

    Because of all these brain damaged fuckwits tying their cultural identity to a corrupt government.

  • Oliofizodos@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

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

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

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

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

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

      • Oliofizodos@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

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

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Israel is not genocidal

        That is absolutely NOT the ruling of this court.

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

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

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

        • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

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

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

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

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

            • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

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

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

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

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • jorge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        from defending itself against Hamas before Israel achieves meaningful security goals

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

        • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

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

  • steventhedev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wonder how long it will take for Israel to file a countersuit against Palestine for their failure to prevent genocidal statements.

    There’s plenty of room to have the ICJ force the UN to designate Hamas, PFLP, PIJ, Hezbollah, and others as genocidal terrorist organizations that cannot receive any UN funding or have their members employed by the UN. UNRWA would have to fire half their employees, but that’s not a bad thing.

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

      There’s no doubt in my mind that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc. etc. would, given half the chance, genocide Jews in Israel.

      But I think part of genocide is having the power structure to actually accomplish that level of violence and they just aren’t capable of it. Individual ATROCITIES? Sure, that’s in their reach. Assassinating an entire people? They just don’t have that capability.

      If you look at an American example… the Americans had the capability and desire to commit genocide against Native Americans.

      The inverse? Massacres, sure, genocide? Not so much.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I mean, the ICJ is organized and maintained by the UN, so it makes sense that a “strong response” from them effectively amounts to hand-wringing.