4 ms·

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.

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]
      - layer8 3y ago
        Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146853.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        Do you mean from page 2? Because that is the court just saying what each side requested. The actual order that the court gave is much later in the document.
        smoothjazz 3y ago
        Ah ok, I see. You are correct, I did misread that part.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > They just asked Israel to try hard to minimize damage, which they already demonstrated they do. Where, other than with mere hand waving? How did they explain away blowing courts and universities with rigged explosives? Soldiers bragging about "occupation, expulsion, settlement, annexiation"? All the talk about how there are no civilians in Gaza? How many people who said that has Israel prosecuted so far?
  - dang 3y ago
    You've been using HN primarily* to conduct political battle on this topic for a long time now. You've already taken to doing this again, repeatedly, in this thread. That's not in the intended spirit of what we want on HN, and especially not the spirit which I attempted to describe in my pinned comment at the top. Therefore, please stop. * In fact, it looks like you've been doing nothing but that. I've already explained to you repeatedly and at length why that's not ok on HN. If you keep it up, we're going to have to ban you. (And lest anyone worry: no, this has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with your views. You're plainly breaking both HN's rules and intended spirit, that is all.)
    - hank0 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - xenospn 3y ago
    Sounds like you’ve been spending a little too much time on TikTok.
    - dang 3y ago
      Please don't cross into flamewar, regardless of what anyone else is doing.
- adhamsalama 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - xdennis 3y ago
    So Israel told people to move to avoid collateral damage and you call that ethnic cleansing?
    - dang 3y ago
      Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I'm sure that you have legitimate reasons to feel the way you do, but you're posting to this thread in a way that is against the intended spirit, as I tried to explain it in the pinned comment at the top. Please don't do that. If you can't post in the intended spirit, that's understandable, but in that case please don't post until you can. (Exactly the same thing, of course, goes for the commenters you're in disagreement with - for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39150923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39150923)
layer8 3y ago
The measures ordered by the UN court are in references to Article II of the Genocide Convention [0], which limits the scope to “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, where the court identifies the group as “Palestinians in Gaza”. So it’s the intent of genocide towards that group which is the deciding factor. As long as the actions do not carry that intent (and are plausible as such), they are not prohibited. My reading is that the court is basically saying “You are presently running the risk of committing genocide, please take all measures in your power to prevent that.” [0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...
- esafak 3y ago
  They will claim they are attempting to kill Hamas militants and any non-Hamas Palestinians deaths are incidental. You can do anything with this excuse. Did the court close this loophole?
  - layer8 3y ago
    Any accusation of genocide will be for the relevant courts to decide. False pretexts (excuses) can be identified as such. The present court order is a shot across the bow. The court is explicitly saying that the intent of genocide appears plausible at this time, and explains the reasons for that assessment. Meaning that Israel will have to show with their actions if they want to turn it implausible.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    Its not really a loop hole but kind of the main intention of the law. Too many civilian deaths is for war crimes & crimes against humanity, not the crime of genocide.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    I don't think it's really a loophole. For example, the Nazis could not possibly claim that the people they killed in death camps were merely collateral damage.
golergka 3y ago
[flagged]
- alexisread 3y ago
  Generally the proportion of civilians in a hospital vastly outweighs any fighters. Bombing a hospital does in no way count as reasonable steps to prevent collateral damage. Shooting people queueing for food aid similarly does not count.
  - halflife 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - alexisread 3y ago
      https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133698/gaza-hospitals-airstrikes-israel-hamas-war https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133698/gaza-hospitals-air...
      - halflife 3y ago
        The source for that is Gazan eye witnesses, Same one that argues that Israel killed 500 people bombing Al Ahli hospital, that was eventually found out to be from a failed Hamas rocket. Even if what they claim is true, as you can see from multiple sources, al Shifa hospital still stands and operational. The article has multiple inaccuracies. It glosses over the fact that many weapons were found inside the hospital (https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213145028/israel-hamas-gaza-hospital https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213145028/israel-hamas-gaza-...), It ignores the fact that there was armed Hamas forces fighting Israeli military on hospital grounds (https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaza-al-quds-idf-terrorist-hamas-rpg-launcher-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaz...). And just plain inaccuracy telling that the solar panels were the only source of electricity for the hospital, since the hospital was operating from the start of the war, up until today, with generators.
bakuninsbart 3y ago
You are allowed under international law to lead war with significant amounts of civilian casualties. The issue being judged is claims of Israel committing a genocide. This is just a preliminary order while the full case is considered, and it might be bad PR to disregard it, but nothing else will come of it. When hearing 'genocide', most people immediately jump to the Holocaust, but the definition used by the ICC and IL in general is far more permissible: 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. A to E are horrible acts by themselves, but what makes a genocide is intent, and intent is very hard to prove. Personally, I think SA brought a very strong case forward, the genocidal tendencies of key Israeli decision makers and exeters are well published. In the US and Europe, the political class and general public just ignore the evidence currently, and a ruling of the ICC might help people 'wake up', but not much tangible consequences will result from it otherwise.
- rashkov 3y ago
  You might find this to be an interesting read, even if it may not change your mind. “What Did Top Israeli War Officials Really Say About Gaza? Journalists and jurists point to damning quotes from Israel’s war cabinet as evidence of genocidal intent. But the citations are not what they seem.” https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/is... Archive version: https://archive.ph/GV14c https://archive.ph/GV14c

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]
    - layer8 3y ago
      Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146853.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      Do you mean from page 2? Because that is the court just saying what each side requested. The actual order that the court gave is much later in the document.
      - smoothjazz 3y ago
        Ah ok, I see. You are correct, I did misread that part.
johnnyworker 3y ago
> They just asked Israel to try hard to minimize damage, which they already demonstrated they do. Where, other than with mere hand waving? How did they explain away blowing courts and universities with rigged explosives? Soldiers bragging about "occupation, expulsion, settlement, annexiation"? All the talk about how there are no civilians in Gaza? How many people who said that has Israel prosecuted so far?
- dang 3y ago
  You've been using HN primarily* to conduct political battle on this topic for a long time now. You've already taken to doing this again, repeatedly, in this thread. That's not in the intended spirit of what we want on HN, and especially not the spirit which I attempted to describe in my pinned comment at the top. Therefore, please stop. * In fact, it looks like you've been doing nothing but that. I've already explained to you repeatedly and at length why that's not ok on HN. If you keep it up, we're going to have to ban you. (And lest anyone worry: no, this has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with your views. You're plainly breaking both HN's rules and intended spirit, that is all.)
  - hank0 3y ago
    [flagged]
- xenospn 3y ago
  Sounds like you’ve been spending a little too much time on TikTok.
  - dang 3y ago
    Please don't cross into flamewar, regardless of what anyone else is doing.
adhamsalama 3y ago
[flagged]
- xdennis 3y ago
  So Israel told people to move to avoid collateral damage and you call that ethnic cleansing?
  - dang 3y ago
    Please don't post flamewar comments to HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I'm sure that you have legitimate reasons to feel the way you do, but you're posting to this thread in a way that is against the intended spirit, as I tried to explain it in the pinned comment at the top. Please don't do that. If you can't post in the intended spirit, that's understandable, but in that case please don't post until you can. (Exactly the same thing, of course, goes for the commenters you're in disagreement with - for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39150923 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39150923)

layer8 3y ago

The measures ordered by the UN court are in references to Article II of the Genocide Convention [0], which limits the scope to “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, where the court identifies the group as “Palestinians in Gaza”. So it’s the intent of genocide towards that group which is the deciding factor. As long as the actions do not carry that intent (and are plausible as such), they are not prohibited. My reading is that the court is basically saying “You are presently running the risk of committing genocide, please take all measures in your power to prevent that.” [0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...

esafak 3y ago
They will claim they are attempting to kill Hamas militants and any non-Hamas Palestinians deaths are incidental. You can do anything with this excuse. Did the court close this loophole?
- layer8 3y ago
  Any accusation of genocide will be for the relevant courts to decide. False pretexts (excuses) can be identified as such. The present court order is a shot across the bow. The court is explicitly saying that the intent of genocide appears plausible at this time, and explains the reasons for that assessment. Meaning that Israel will have to show with their actions if they want to turn it implausible.
- bawolff 3y ago
  Its not really a loop hole but kind of the main intention of the law. Too many civilian deaths is for war crimes & crimes against humanity, not the crime of genocide.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  I don't think it's really a loophole. For example, the Nazis could not possibly claim that the people they killed in death camps were merely collateral damage.

golergka 3y ago

[flagged]

alexisread 3y ago
Generally the proportion of civilians in a hospital vastly outweighs any fighters. Bombing a hospital does in no way count as reasonable steps to prevent collateral damage. Shooting people queueing for food aid similarly does not count.
- halflife 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - alexisread 3y ago
    https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133698/gaza-hospitals-airstrikes-israel-hamas-war https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133698/gaza-hospitals-air...
    - halflife 3y ago
      The source for that is Gazan eye witnesses, Same one that argues that Israel killed 500 people bombing Al Ahli hospital, that was eventually found out to be from a failed Hamas rocket. Even if what they claim is true, as you can see from multiple sources, al Shifa hospital still stands and operational. The article has multiple inaccuracies. It glosses over the fact that many weapons were found inside the hospital (https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213145028/israel-hamas-gaza-hospital https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213145028/israel-hamas-gaza-...), It ignores the fact that there was armed Hamas forces fighting Israeli military on hospital grounds (https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaza-al-quds-idf-terrorist-hamas-rpg-launcher-vpx.cnn https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaz...). And just plain inaccuracy telling that the solar panels were the only source of electricity for the hospital, since the hospital was operating from the start of the war, up until today, with generators.

bakuninsbart 3y ago

You are allowed under international law to lead war with significant amounts of civilian casualties. The issue being judged is claims of Israel committing a genocide. This is just a preliminary order while the full case is considered, and it might be bad PR to disregard it, but nothing else will come of it. When hearing 'genocide', most people immediately jump to the Holocaust, but the definition used by the ICC and IL in general is far more permissible: 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. A to E are horrible acts by themselves, but what makes a genocide is intent, and intent is very hard to prove. Personally, I think SA brought a very strong case forward, the genocidal tendencies of key Israeli decision makers and exeters are well published. In the US and Europe, the political class and general public just ignore the evidence currently, and a ruling of the ICC might help people 'wake up', but not much tangible consequences will result from it otherwise.

rashkov 3y ago
You might find this to be an interesting read, even if it may not change your mind. “What Did Top Israeli War Officials Really Say About Gaza? Journalists and jurists point to damning quotes from Israel’s war cabinet as evidence of genocidal intent. But the citations are not what they seem.” https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/israel-south-africa-genocide-case-fake-quotes/677198/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/is... Archive version: https://archive.ph/GV14c https://archive.ph/GV14c