157

Middle East crisis live: ICJ ruling on case alleging genocide by Israel in Gaza and call for it to stop military action (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 59 points 8 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.world 28 points 8 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 16 points 8 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?

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 19 points 8 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 15 points 8 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 8 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.

[-] fastandcurious@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

Are you really saying we should go holocaust level before anyone should take action?

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I'm saying collateral damage is not genocide.

[-] fastandcurious@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

‘Wait until enough Palestinians are killed before punishing Israel’

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Cutting off food water and power to the populace while preventing humanitarian aid is deliberate and is in no way collateral damage you fucking ghoul

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

You need help, bro. Read the article.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

Back at your murder apologist trolling again, I see

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

The tl;dr is:

Palestinians are protected under the genocide conventions.
Israel needs to take steps to ensure genocide is not being committed.
Israel needs to improve humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Come back in a month.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Palestinians are a national group and should qualify under the statutes, I didn't think that was ever under question. Hamas, however, is a political group and therefore not protected. If those Israeli statements refer to them, I don't believe they violate any statutes.

Israel was fighting “human animals”.

If this referred to Hamas militants, not Palestinians in general, it is not incitement to genocide.

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

An entire nation did in fact elect Hamas to power and to this day they enjoy popular support among Palestinians, which would in fact make them responsible for everything that followed from their leadership. Pointing this out is not incitement to violence against them.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago

The phrases "he had ordered 'complete siege' of Gaza City”, and later said “we will eliminate everything” sure doesn't make it sound like they are interested in limiting it to Hamas.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] Retrowizard@piefed.social 16 points 8 months ago

Except Hamas is the excuse and was never the real target. The real target are and always have been the Palestinian people.

The popularity of Hamas is a consequence of 70+ years of subjugation under control of the settlers. The genocide of Palestinians didn't start 100+ days ago; it started with the Nakba.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Cope and justification.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 17 points 8 months ago

"You're committing genocide."

"Okay, but did I intend to? :trollface:"

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 16 points 8 months ago

Genocide is literally a claim of intent.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

So accidental genocide is okay? If you do a war and a genocide happens just...all well shit happens?

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

One cannot commit accidental genocide, genocide requires intent to destroy a protected group to be classified as such. See the legal definitions elsewhere in this thread. Different war crimes might apply to accidental action, but not genocide.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

All genocides are war crimes, but not all war crimes are genocides. ;)

[-] JustUseMint@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

"stop committing hate crimes"

"Is it a hate crime if Im enjoying it?"

[-] Oliofizodos@feddit.de 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

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 9 points 8 months ago

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

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months 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 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 19 points 8 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 8 points 8 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.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

It’s a genocide.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 13 points 8 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 7 points 8 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.world 10 points 8 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.

[-] Oliofizodos@feddit.de 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.

[-] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago

We don’t expect Hamas to do anything good because they are terrorists.

We used to expect Israel to do good things because they used to not be terrorists.

[-] fastandcurious@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

They were always dicks tho

[-] NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago

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

Honestly?

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] jalda@sopuli.xyz 11 points 8 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?

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

The International Court of Justice rejects Israel's bid to throw out the genocide case, calls for Israel to take steps to protect Palestinians in Gaza.

The ICJ also ordered Hamas to release the hostages being held in Gaza. There was no call by the court for Israel to end the war. The case will continue.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Netanyahu told the ICJ to suck his balls and they got down on their knees.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 10 points 8 months ago

Pretty much.

sigh

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

Expected but disappointing. As usual a vague ruling that can be interpreted in any way israel wants without any real demands. Not even forcing israel to let humanitarian aid in.

The court of "Justice" has become the court of Genocide.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 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.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024

157 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38836 readers

1632 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.