this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
145 points (95.6% liked)

World News

40081 readers
3847 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Oliofizodos@feddit.de 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Oliofizodos@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

"12m ago 08.10 EST

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

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

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

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also do you really, truly believe they would stop if Hamas released all of the hostages today?

Honestly?

[–] Saxoboneless@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That was the deal Hamas offered them days ago - Netanyahu refused it.

[–] Oliofizodos@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[–] jalda@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year 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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.world 1 points 1 year 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.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It’s a genocide.