Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[littlebabyjesus]

It was notable that they made a big point of listing the instances of genocidal speech by Israeli politicians. I did wonder why they were making such a deal of those words when the actions are so clear, but it makes sense that they need to establish genocidal intent.

They will say that states have the right to self-defence, and that the State of Israel has taken every care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, and that the aim is to defeat Hamas, not destroy the Palestinian people, and the fact that it is not doing the same things in the West Bank proves that it does not have genocidal intent with respect to the Palestinian people. There have been temporary interruptions to the passage of humanitarian supplies, but these interruptions were made with the intention of destroying the Palestinian people, but were the unfortunate outcome of warfare.

That would fall under the category 'lies'. And the court will know full well that they are lies. So it will come down to whether or not they choose to pretend that the lies are credible.

The court's credibility is gone if they find for Israel.

 

[agricola]

I doubt that lawyers for the State of Israel will try whataboutery, as that is not at all a plausible legal argument.

(“You are charged with stealing £50.”
“What about Jimmy Smith? – he nicked £100”.
“Jimmy Smith is not on trial in this court.”)

They will say that states have the right to self-defence, and that the State of Israel has taken every care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, and that the aim is to defeat Hamas, not destroy the Palestinian people, and the fact that it is not doing the same things in the West Bank proves that it does not have genocidal intent with respect to the Palestinian people. There have been temporary interruptions to the passage of humanitarian supplies, but these interruptions were made with the intention of destroying the Palestinian people, but were the unfortunate outcome of warfare.

Indeed, and that might work for some of this case in the final judgement.

They cannot easily argue away things like Netanyahu's Amalek reference though, which was in a nationally broadcast speech written beforehand and which has been repeated by leaders and by the troops on the ground. The leader of the state clearly referenced a genocide and the acts he has ordered so far at least would make a reasonable person think that there was a real risk of a genocide taking place if it is not stopped. (edit) I honestly cannot see anyone apart from Israel and the US not backing an interim order to stop it.

 

[PTK]

Just run that last sentence from this plausible legal argument again please

I accidentally omitted the word "not" in my last sentence.

 

[PTK]

Indeed, and that might work for some of this case in the final judgement.

They cannot easily argue away things like Netanyahu's Amalek reference though, which was in a nationally broadcast speech written beforehand and which has been repeated by leaders and by the troops on the ground. The leader of the state clearly referenced a genocide and the acts he has ordered so far at least would make a reasonable person think that there was a real risk of a genocide taking place if it is not stopped. (edit) I honestly cannot see anyone apart from Israel and the US not backing an interim order to stop it.

Yes, I think you are right. Various statements indicate that there is a danger of genocide, even if it has not yet become genocide, which I suppose means the court must order a cessation, to void that danger.

 

[Rimbaud]

How will Israel respond? Lies and whataboutery plus but antisemitism, what else do they have? I would guess that they will react angrily to the attack on Israel's entire history as a country, but what facts do they have?

I am hopeful that the result will go the right way. Only the US has openly backed Israel. UK is keeping quiet, which suggests to me that they think Israel will lose.

There's a lot riding on this IMO - it makes the case for the BDS movement so much stronger if you can point to it being ruled as a genocide. Could be a game changer really.

 

[PTK]

There's a lot riding on this IMO - it makes the case for the BDS movement so much stronger if you can point to it being ruled as a genocide. Could be a game changer really.

As I understand it, although the court may order a cessation of hostilities in order to avert the danger of genocide, the determination of whether genocide has already occurred will take a very long time.

 

[agricola]

As I understand it, although the court may order a cessation of hostilities in order to avert the danger of genocide, the determination of whether genocide has already occurred will take a very long time.

It should, though looking at statements from Israeli officials (such as the one below) it might not take as long as feared:

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Israel's lead lawyer is Briton Malcolm Shaw. Among other things, he's written a book called Genocide and International Law. Wonder if they tried to draft in Starmer?

 

[PTK]

"If approved, the ICJ could issue an order in weeks. In the case of Ukraine v Russia, the ICJ responded to Kyiv’s requests for an emergency order against Moscow’s invasion in less than three weeks. The court, on March 16, 2022, ordered Russia to “immediately suspend the military operations”."

How will South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel work?

Israel has promised to defend itself as the World Court is set to hold public hearings in case brought by South Africa.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It should, though looking at statements from Israeli officials (such as the one below) it might not take as long as feared:

Lies, whataboutery and but antisemitism. It's all they have.

 

[PTK]

Lies, whataboutery and but antisemitism. It's all they have.

It will be interesting to hear what they say tomorrow.
The "blood libel" claim made by some Israelis is the most disgusting and farcical claim, in my opinion.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It will be interesting to hear what they say tomorrow.
The "blood libel" claim made by some Israelis is the most disgusting and farcical claim, in my opinion.

You'd think that they wouldn't lead with the claim that South Africa is the legal arm of Hamas. But coming out swinging has been their approach throughout. 7 October will no doubt be mentioned many, many times.

 

[teqniq]

I started following this woman to obtain another perspective. I initially thought she was fairly moderate and perhaps in her own mind she is. However she posted this today. In the OP she dismisses talk of genocide by political figure and suchlike as an Israeli tradition of enjoying talking too much as if no-one else is listening.

It is worth quoting the op in full:

As the author of ‘Jews and Words’, a book that celebrates the Jewish culture of debate and textuality, I must spell out something that the book didn’t mention, a negative aspect of our talkative legacy.You may not like it, but here it is.This morning’s proceedings in The Hague focus on genocidical talk in the Israeli public sphere. There are dozens of examples: ministers, Knesset members, influencers. Even the manipulative Netanyahu mentioned Amalek, the ancient people that the Bible singled out for eradication. Never mind that great rabbis have determined long ago that Amalek is obsolete, and the biblical verdict does not apply to any existing nation.What stands on trial today is the ancient Jewish habit of speaking to each other as if no one else is listening. The Jewish habit of making extreme statements irresponsibly, unthoughtfully, without expecting any payback.For so many centuries we have exercised a wild freedom of speech among ourselves, in our own languages, relying on our own argumentative balance mechanism: extremism and moderation may clash, and moderation usually triumphs. The House of Shammai is legitimate, but the House of Hillel, the moderates, usually wins.Israeli verbal culture inherited this freedom. But Israel is also a liberal democracy and member of the global community. Most of the loudmouths crying Genocide and Amalek are not aware of the profound dissonance, the huge damage, the justified outrage. Some don’t care.Only a small minority wants actual genocide in Gaza and are morally crippled enough to carry it through: the extreme national-religious right.The fact that Netanyahu allowed these thugs into his government and echoes their discourse is an eternal blot on Jewish history.Our disputative, wordy culture deserves to be celebrated, but it must denounce its dangerous outcrop of inciters to blind violence. Their Amalekite speech has become too viable to bear. Too doable.No, Israel is not conducting genocide. But its ongoing rant about “flattening Gaza” is no longer a quaint side effect of our argumentative heritage. It is a crime, a travesty and a harrowing blow to the best of Jewish traditions.

However she then goes on to say this at least twice (I called her out on it and no response at the time of posting). I believe she is implying the use of nuclear weapons and she uses it as justification to say that Israel is not committing genocide:

 

[littlebabyjesus]

One problem with that. They are flattening Gaza. They're already most of the way through the flattening process. That's not just disputative rhetoric.

 

[Rimbaud]

It should, though looking at statements from Israeli officials (such as the one below) it might not take as long as feared:

It's getting hard to take Israeli statements seriously now, they are coming across as increasingly shrill and fanatical. "South Africa functioning as the legal arm of the terrorist organisation Hamas" oh, fuck off.

 

[PTK]

I started following this woman to obtain another perspective. I initially thought she was fairly moderate and perhaps in her own mind she is. However she posted this today. In the OP she dismisses talk of genocide by political figure and suchlike as an Israeli tradition of enjoying talking too much as if no-one else is listening.

It is worth quoting the op in full:



However she then goes on to say this at least twice (I called her out on it and no response at the time of posting). I believe she is implying the use of nuclear weapons and she uses it as justification to say that Israel is not committing genocide:

In the end, whatever it is classed as, it is a mass slaughter of unarmed civilians. The number of civilians killed in the Gaza Strip in three months is something like 20 times the number killed in Ukraine in 23 months, as a proportion of the population.

10,000 dead civilians in Ukraine, which has a population of about 43 million. The Gaza Strip has a population of 2.2 million. The intent on the part of the State of Israel is certainly the collective punishment of the civilian population, which is a war crime.

 

[Pickman's model]

It should, though looking at statements from Israeli officials (such as the one below) it might not take as long as feared:

has anyone contacted the zionist foreign ministry to point out their x account appears to have been hacked?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

5 Key points of South Africa's presentation:

1) Israeli officials meant what they said when they uttered genocidal statements and were understood as such by troops. One cannot therefore argue that they are being misconstrued.
2) Even Israel's supposedly humanitarian actions (e.g. the evacuation order) are genocidal, because they constitute mass displacement, aid is being withheld, and people in safe areas are still being bombed
3) Israel is not just in this case for committing genocide, but for doing next to nothing to prevent genocide and punish those that incite genocide
4) Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza and so Israel cannot argue it is acting in self-defence over territory it controls, but even if it could, self-defence can never take the form of genocide
5) Israel claims it is only attacking Hamas, but the extent of destruction, clearly indiscriminate, cannot then be described as a "manhunt" for Hamas. There is a risk for irreparable harm to Palestinian lives, which then justifies the ordering of provisional measures

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Point 1 really does fuck them, doesn't it? If you're going to commit genocide, don't talk about genocide.

 

[The39thStep]

For those who didn't get to see/hear the application here are a couple of clips from the submission that Blinne Ní Ghrâlaigh KC made

 

[agricola]

I started following this woman to obtain another perspective. I initially thought she was fairly moderate and perhaps in her own mind she is. However she posted this today. In the OP she dismisses talk of genocide by political figure and suchlike as an Israeli tradition of enjoying talking too much as if no-one else is listening.

It is worth quoting the op in full:



However she then goes on to say this at least twice (I called her out on it and no response at the time of posting). I believe she is implying the use of nuclear weapons and she uses it as justification to say that Israel is not committing genocide:

It is the disconnect between saying that the great Rabbis long ago defined the Amalek bits metaphorically on the one hand whilst acknowledging that the right quote it literally that does my head in.

Of course some people use it metaphorically; the problem is they are not the ones in government whereas the right are and they are killing tens of thousands of people.

 

[Rimbaud]

Point 1 really does fuck them, doesn't it? If you're going to commit genocide, don't talk about genocide.

I understand that proof of intent is usually the stumbling block for accusations of genocide in warfare, but Israel have really fucked themselves by doing nothing to discipline high level officials and politicians who openly promote genocide.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I understand that proof of intent is usually the stumbling block for accusations of genocide in warfare, but Israel have really fucked themselves by doing nothing to discipline high level officials and politicians who openly promote genocide.

Most crucially, including Netanyahu himself. He might have been able to distance himself from his headbanger coalition partners, maybe, but he can't distance himself from himself. I don't know if the president was mentioned today. He's spoken of a collective guilt borne by all Palestinians in Gaza. And he's supposed to be the moderate person.

 

[Pickman's model]

I understand that proof of intent is usually the stumbling block for accusations of genocide in warfare, but Israel have really fucked themselves by doing nothing to discipline high level officials and politicians who openly promote genocide.

Good

 

[Pickman's model]

Point 1 really does fuck them, doesn't it? If you're going to commit genocide, don't talk about genocide.

Yeh the first rule of genocide club is you don't talk of genocide club

 

[Gramsci]

World Court Rejects Myanmar Objections to Genocide Case

The International Court of Justice on July 22 rejected Myanmar’s preliminary objections to the case brought by Gambia under the international Genocide Convention.

www.hrw.org

Watching Middle East Eye and it was pointed out their are precedents for provisional rulings by ICJ directed at Myanmar:

The provisional measures require Myanmar to prevent all genocidal acts against the Rohingya, to ensure that security forces do not commit acts of genocide, and to take steps to preserve evidence related to the case. The

Also ruled against Russia and made provisional order for it to stop.

UN international court of justice orders Russia to halt invasion of Ukraine

Judge says court in The Hague has seen no evidence to support Kremlin’s justification for the war

www.theguardian.com

In the case of Ukraine UK government supported Ukraine

Attorney General, Victoria Prentis MP, KC said:

Today was an important day for the international rule of law. It was an honour to present the UK’s arguments before the International Court of Justice.
The Genocide Convention is an important treaty that obliges States to prevent and punish genocide. As such, it stands as a bulwark against mass atrocity.
Alongside 31 other intervening States, the UK has demonstrated its commitment to the proper interpretation and application of the provisions of that Convention by intervening in this case.

Attorney General presents UK intervention in Ukraine case against Russia at International Court of Justice

Attorney General Victoria Prentis KC has delivered the UK’s submissions in a hearing at the International Court of Justice in The Hague today.

www.gov.uk

A total of 33 countries supported Ukraine at ICJ

A record 33 countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia and every European Union member nation except Hungary requested to participate on Ukraine’s side in the case. However, the U.N. court’s judges rejected the U.S. request on a technicality.

Top UN court allows a record 32 countries to intervene in Ukraine's genocide case against Russia

The United Nations’ highest court says it has accepted requests from 32 countries to back Ukraine in a genocide complaint against Russia. Ukraine’s government filed the case at the International Court of Justice days after Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022. The Kremlin snubbed...

apnews.com

The Western countries governments double standards over Ukraine and Gaza are so obvious

 

[Gramsci]

I found this short summary of the background to the convention and South Africas first arguments very helpful

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They may not have requested to participate, but more than 60 countries have voiced their support for South Africa's case. Not one from Europe, though. As you say, double standards.

 

[Gramsci]

Worse than that is Biden:

Ukraine:

Ukraine War: Biden accuses Russian troops of committing genocide in Ukraine

The US leader says President Putin is trying to "wipe out the idea" of a Ukrainian identity.

www.bbc.co.uk

Gaza:

Blinken calls genocide case against Israel ‘meritless’

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday denounced Israel being referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for alleged genocide during its war in Gaza, calling the…

thehill.com

Biden lot official line is the the South African case is "meritless"

Biden administration have already decided the verdict.

 

[PTK]

They may not have requested to participate, but more than 60 countries have voiced their support for South Africa's case. Not one from Europe, though. As you say, double standards.

The Republic of Albania is a European state backing the case brought to the ICJ by the Republic of South Africa.