16 ms·

Glad to see Israel face some responsibility for its horrific acts against civilians. > The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, incl

• bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  I believe the court reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself. Presumably, the "all it can to prevent" wording is meant to work around things we expect a nation must do, such as defending itself from attack.
  • smoothjazz 3y ago
    It explicitly says they must stop killing Palestinians. None of their current military tactics satisfy this demand.
    • bitshiftfaced 3y ago
      The court referenced article II of the Genocide Convention here, which includes "Killing members of the group." Any country that commits genocide in the way outlined by the convention would be in violation, not just Israel.
      • smoothjazz 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • Timber-6539 3y ago
          [flagged]
          • WhackyIdeas 3y ago
            So far they’ve wiped out 1% of their population. The only reason it’s not 50% (imo) is that there’s hostages still there. If you are a Palestinian over there, don’t go waving a white flag or you just become a target practise. Sources: https://www.itn.co.uk/news/palestinian-man-carrying-white-flag-shot-dead-gaza https://www.itn.co.uk/news/palestinian-man-carrying-white-fl... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-hostages-killed-mistakenly-gaza-were-holding-white-flag-official-says-2023-12-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-hostages-k...
          • mrkeen 3y ago
            > From today's ruling, Israel would continue the genocide of Palestinians at its own peril. What peril will Israel face? More condemnation of Hamas by western leaders?
            • Timber-6539 3y ago
              Increased isolation from the rest of the normal world, more especially from its bosom buddy Uncle Sam.
              • mrkeen 3y ago
                New update: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68104203 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68104203 > The UK, Australia, Italy and Canada have become the latest countries to pause funding for the UN agency for Palestinians, UNRWA. Western countries stop sending relief to Palestinians in Gaza... > This comes after the agency announced the sacking of several of its staff over allegations of involvement in the 7 October Hamas attacks. > UNRWA says it has ordered an investigation into information supplied by Israel. ... because Israel alleged that it was the relief workers who were the terrorists.
                • Timber-6539 3y ago
                  > Western countries stop sending relief to Palestinians in Gaza... Wake me up when they stop sending weapons to Netanyahu. > ... because Israel alleged that it was the relief workers who were the terrorists. Changes nothing. An opportunity for the rest of the non-genocidal world to come to Gaza's aid. The rest of the world will continue to support the Palestinian people overcome this terrible evil being carried out by Zionist Israel.
        • byt143 3y ago
          So Israel can't enjoy the same right to self defense that any other state would? They can't conduct a war in an urban environment with an actual intentionally genocidal enemy, and must resort to targeted assassinations? That standard is absurd. Surely you can admit some middle ground ,if you're discussing in good faith.
        • brighteyes 3y ago
          Unfortunately for the Palestinians, that is not what was ruled. They were hoping for a full ceasefire like what you have interpreted, but they are very disappointed in the ruling because it does not say that. What it does say is 1. Israel must do more to prevent the possibility of genocide. Genocide is killing a people with the intent of killing them for the sake of destroying them, and not as collateral damage, so it does not mean stopping all death. Collateral damage, unfortunately, remains on the table. 2. Israel must report back in a month with how they are doing that. For example, they could show lower amounts of collateral damage, an increase in aid, punishments for officials that make statements that could be construed as genocidal, and so forth. That is better than nothing, to be certain, but it is far from a ceasefire, unfortunately.
        • bitshiftfaced 3y ago
          > Correct, it's very likely that Israel is committing genocide and the court ordered them to stop while they do a full investigation. I think there was a miscommunication. You said that the provisional measures said that Israel must stop killing Palestinians, and so there is no way to have a ceasefire. I was saying that what's actually in the provisional measures is a reiteration of the Genocide Convention, of which all countries must already abide, including Israel. Whether or not it's likely a country is commiting genocide or it's self defense, they haven't ruled on. I deliberately avoided any speculation with my comments.
        • starik36 3y ago
          > it's very likely that Israel is committing genocide The court said no such thing.
    • johnnyworker 3y ago
      This goes beyond military tactics: > Leading propaganda machine and former Member of Knesset Einat Wilf suggests that the Israeli government should allow aid into Gaza officially, but unofficially let "protesters" to block all aid from entering the Strip. I think that's actually kinda what happened today. -- https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1750216471152635915 https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/175021647115263591... > The Gaon Rabbi Dov Lior Shalita in a halachic ruling: Citizens must prevent the entry of Hamas trucks even on Shabbat, because equipping and supplying the enemy is a war act that must be stopped from the point of view of human control. -- https://twitter.com/Torat_IDF/status/1750600997745959279 https://twitter.com/Torat_IDF/status/1750600997745959279 Probably a terrible translation but the point is clear, incitement and impunity, and the results are predictable. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/protesters-prevent-51-aid-trucks-from-entering-gaza-saying-its-insane-to-aid-the-enemy/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/protesters-prev... https://www.jewishpress.com/news/eye-on-palestine/gaza/protesters-succeed-in-blocking-entry-of-all-the-humanitarian-aid-trucks-into-gaza/2024/01/25/ https://www.jewishpress.com/news/eye-on-palestine/gaza/prote... Yesterday, 0 trucks could enter Gaza, the day before that 9 out of 60, don't know about today. Note that under the convention against genocide, Israel is required to prosecute genocidal speech, much less such genocidal acts (apart from not committing them of course). Instead, as Yoav Gallant just posted this on Twitter: > The State of Israel does not need need to be lectured on morality in order to distinguish between terrorists and the civilian population in Gaza. The ICJ went above and beyond, when it granted South Africa's antisemitic request to discuss the claim of genocide in Gaza. ... which is as good a summary as any for what you find at every corner with this: not just the unwillingness to learn, but the inability to even comprehend any of this. When Gideon Levy talks about the incredible depth of Israeli indoctrination, he isn't kidding, and he's not exaggerating.
      • kevingadd 3y ago
        "brainwashing" is a term that's going to unavoidably turn this conversation in a bad direction, it might be best not to use it here. There are less inflammatory ways to describe what's happening in that tweet.
        • 3y ago
• botverse 3y ago
  The technicality I see here is that the ICJ can call a ceasefire in an armed conflict, this would carry the implicit message that the civilian casualties are collateral damage. Instead they are asking to stop the genocidal acts. In a genocide the civilians are the target. It’s bad for the Palestinians in the short term, and bad for Israel in the long
  • jdietrich 3y ago
    >Instead they are asking to stop the genocidal acts. No, they have ordered Israel not to commit genocidal acts. The court has made no ruling on whether Israel has or has not committed genocidal acts.
• shmatt 3y ago
  Except SA specifically asked the court to require a ceasefire, which would have immediate consequences via security council vote and no more munitions landing in Israel. And the judges voted it down This isn't a read between the lines situation, because SA's request was specifically for the court to temporarily rule for a full immediate ceasefire until the larger case could be heard What is interesting here is that by mis-reading the verdict like yourself, and Israel assuming the worst, both sides immediately came out saying today was a huge win. So at least we have that, everyone (but the Palestinians, who aren't a side in this case) is happy
  • smoothjazz 3y ago
    Honestly I'm not trying to mis-read the verdict which is why I asked the question. I think all of Israel's strategies to date include the death of Palestinians. Since that's explicitly forbidden with that ruling, how will they continue to fight? Will they just ignore the ruling or change tactics?
    • xenospn 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • smoothjazz 3y ago
        [removed]
        • bawolff 3y ago
          No, that was from south africa's request. That wasn't the wording the court used in its decision
          • smoothjazz 3y ago
            [removed]
            • 3y ago
• exe34 3y ago
  No, if they wanted a ceasefire they would have asked for a ceasefire.
• xenospn 3y ago
  Not at all. It simply instructed Israel to try and hit fewer people. Which is what we all expect from every army.
• bawolff 3y ago
  > > The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them > Sounds like a ceasefire to me. How else would they do this? Definitely not with any of the military tactics Israel is currently using. Reading the actual icj ruling it seems like it only forbid it when done with genocidial intent. The court did not forbid collateral damage. The specific wording included the line "...take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II..." Earlier in paragraph 78 they said "The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above)." So basically it is only forbidden if the intent is specificly to kill Palestinians and not if it is collateral damage to some other military objective. I don't think this order will affect anything israel is doing.
  • SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
    The ruling is so politically ambiguous, so israel will probably be digesting it for awhile. Perhaps lowering the military activities.
    • bawolff 3y ago
      I don't know, that part seemed really clear. I think the ambigious part would more be the order about aid (how much aid is sufficient?)
      • SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        Because this ruling is clearly about reading between lines. It feels like it is simply directly chanelling US will.
    • delecti 3y ago
      That seems optimistic. It's not like they haven't already been made aware of their own activities by this point.
    • munk-a 3y ago
• BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  When the UN told the US not to go to war with Irak, they just ignored it. Those bodies have zero power and countries that want to massacre will kill no matter what.
  • gambiting 3y ago
    Quite the contrary - they have all the power, they are just choosing not to use it in this case. If the court ordered a ceasefire all weapon shipments to Israel would have to stop the same day.
    • ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
      Why? Whose the enforcer? Other countries have ignored the ICJ before.
    • sebzim4500 3y ago
      What does "have to" mean in this context? If the US were to sell another batch of weapons would other countries try to shoot the plane out of the air? Would they try to unilaterally sanction 30% of the world economy?
    • smt88 3y ago
      The US absolutely would not stop shipping arms to Israel or anyone else because of an international body's ruling. Israel has stockpiles of arms anyway. The war wouldn't stop just because the arms trade stopped.
  • aa_is_op 3y ago
    [flagged]
• inglor_cz 3y ago
  International law regulates war, but does not entirely prohibit it (that would be futile; wars of aggression are specifically prohibited by Briand-Kellogg pact, but nowadays even aggressors try to dress the situation as justified defense and often get away with it; few wars since 1945 were tried by a competent tribunal and judged unlawful). It isn't unlawful per se to cause civilian casualties during military operations; any demand that the warring parties limit themselves to killing combatants only would be unrealistic, especially in urban settings. It is unlawful to target civilians intentionally or to cause wanton damage to civilian infrastructure, though.
• noamelf 3y ago
  Isn't this collateral damage of waging war with a terrorist organisation embedded in civilian population? I don't this this counts for genocide, as sad as the results are...