Zoraptor Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 I don't think if I were Israel I'd be hanging everything on the narrow definition of 'intent to destroy'. Legal loves a good definition, but they also love a good precedent to clarify those definitions. In this case, "in whole or in part". Anyone care to guess how many people it took for Karim Khan to cite II(e) of the Genocide Convention vs Putin? 'Hundreds' of children, out of a population of 40 million (theoretical). If that's the new threshold 17000 dead women and children out of 2.2 million will certainly pass muster. That's a factor of, hmm, 680, roughly, on the Palestinian side of the ledger. And let's be frank here, at least any children taken by Russia are, well, still alive... Now, of course that's ICC rather than ICJ, but ICC is still an instrument of International Law, and recognised as such by the UN same as the ICJ, even if not officially a UN court. Of course, I mostly just like the possibility of Karim's Khan and Britain's flagrant misuse of the ICC coming back to haunt them. Always nice to see someone corrupt hoist by their own Picard after all. Intent to destroy is pretty much the sole obstacle otherwise. Take II(c) for example, with its clarification from the ICC ('s predecessor for Rwanda): "subjecting a group of people to a subsistence diet, systematic expulsion from homes and the reduction of essential medical services below minimum requirement". Sounds rather like Israel has been using that as a guideline, eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 (edited) For the lolz, here's the submission (pdf, relevant part from p6) from amongst others, Britain and (extra especial lol approaching roflcopter territory) Germany to the ICJ re the Rohingya genocide to see what their opinion on genocide and how International Law should be applied. Choice quotes: Quote [24] Article 11(a) of the Genocide Convention stipulates that one of the underlying acts of genocide is “[k]illing members of the group.” The other underlying acts of genocide in Article ll(b)-(e) refer to egregious acts other than killing. The fact that “killing” is identified in Article 11(a) as one of several types of acts by which genocide may be perpetrated makes it clear that killing is not a requirement for genocide, which may also be committed by acts falling within one of the other sub- paragraphs of Article II. hmm Quote [25] Properly construed, Article II of the Genocide Convention makes it clear that genocide may be committed by means other than killings heh Quote [33] Given their ordinary meaning, the words “physical destruction” in Article 11(c) are not limited to cases where members of the group immediately die as a result of the “conditions of life” inflicted on the group. Ah, OK. They left out the obvious point of what makes for a genocide according to them though: being brown, and the west's enemy. Edited January 16 by Zoraptor 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 (edited) 8 hours ago, Zoraptor said: For the lolz, here's the submission (pdf, relevant part from p6) from amongst others, Britain and (extra especial lol approaching roflcopter territory) Germany to the ICJ re the Rohingya genocide to see what their opinion on genocide and how International Law should be applied. Choice quotes: hmm heh Ah, OK. They left out the obvious point of what makes for a genocide according to them though: being brown, and the west's enemy. What about black people not caring about genocide of black people by brown people? In 2015 Al-Bashir from Sudan was allowed to leave SA without being arrested for an ICC warrant for .....genocide. The wars in south Sudan use to be an ethnic conflict, Arab Sudanese vs black Sundanese and the genocide in Darfur was committed against black Sundanese, 300k black Sudanese were killed And SA didnt arrest him and made excuses why they couldnt arrest him . If we had just known that 8 years later SA would be at the ICJ bringing a case of genocide around another country and now genocide really matters and we doing this because " we are guided by principles and our belief that human rights is a foundation of our foreign policy decisions " according to our president Its a pity we didnt practice that when it came to genocide in Darfur Edited January 17 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I mean, RSA was proven pretty right there. There have been nearly 400k deaths in the South Sudan civil war with ~3 million refugees, and rampant ethnic violence. And with Bashir gone in rump Sudan... well, ongoing civil war there too now. Of course, Salva Kiir is pro west- his trademark hat was originally given to him by GWBush- unlike al-Bashir so he can't by definition be committing genocide... Mostly though, just because you think the ICC is crap- and it is- it doesn't mean that you think the ICJ is crap. They're separate entities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 20 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: I mean, RSA was proven pretty right there. There have been nearly 400k deaths in the South Sudan civil war with ~3 million refugees, and rampant ethnic violence. And with Bashir gone in rump Sudan... well, ongoing civil war there too now. Of course, Salva Kiir is pro west- his trademark hat was originally given to him by GWBush- unlike al-Bashir so he can't by definition be committing genocide... Mostly though, just because you think the ICC is crap- and it is- it doesn't mean that you think the ICJ is crap. They're separate entities. Al-Bashir was ousted in 2019 and the current civil war started last year in 2023, so Sudan didnt collapse when he was removed. This civil war was years later But genocide can be both an ICJ or ICC charge, its not about if you like the ICJ, its about the principle and outrage about genocide as a crime. Thats what SA is now saying about the case against Israel, its about the principle of our belief in human rights as the foundation of foreign policy decisions But with AL-Bashir the principle vanished and suddenly it was about politics. And the ANC must just be honest about that, our foreign policy decisions are not guided by human rights. Its about who we friends with or who we like historically or who we dont like Its not about " we are opposed to genocide as a moral principle " "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 No, it's not about the principle of genocide, as a crime. It's about the ICC vs ICJ and one of them being a kangaroo court. That makes any determination from the ICC suspect so far as RSA is concerned, not the principle itself. Not a difficult concept to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 (edited) 3 hours ago, Zoraptor said: No, it's not about the principle of genocide, as a crime. It's about the ICC vs ICJ and one of them being a kangaroo court. That makes any determination from the ICC suspect so far as RSA is concerned, not the principle itself. Not a difficult concept to grasp. But SA doesnt think the ICC is a kangaroo court because they also want the ICC to charge Israel and your response to this doesnt make sense either, they not trying to shame the ICC to action. They believe the ICC must act, here is the official link from DIRCO https://dirco.gov.za/south-africa-along-with-like-minded-states-submits-joint-referral-of-the-situation-in-palestine-to-the-icc/ To quote " South Africa is further encouraging other States Parties to the Rome Statute to join the referral, or to submit separate referrals independently. South Africa remains committed to ending impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and it is hoped that the situation in Palestine will be prioritised by the ICC in order to deliver justice to the victims of these grave crimes " They even mention genocide and other countries joining them, thats not what a country would say if they didnt think the ICC mattered.These are public government statements So the inconsistency is obvious, the ICC matters when the ANC doesnt like a country but if its a "friend " then crimes like genocide dont matter and the ICC will be ignored or questioned like with Al-Bashir But its not about principle which is what our president said, it all about politics Edited January 17 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Already answered. If they want to demonstrate unfair treatment from the ICC there's no better way than showing that Israelis have impunity, and you do that by being very shouty and then having the ICC do nothing. They don't really expect Karim Khan to act against Bibi and friends. If they embarrass him into action more the good and maybe the ICC is worthwhile, if they don't, point proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 https://www.axios.com/2024/01/22/israel-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-hostages There is a possibility there could be a 2 month ceasefire if all the hostages are released, Qatar is helping to facilitate this Hopefully this succeeds , the sooner this terrible conflict is over the better "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) ICJ is going to announce any preliminary measures this week. Not a decision on the main case but on RSA's request for an injunction to stop Israel's attacks. Interesting statistic for the day, total number of deliberate and premeditated attacks on healthcare facilities with indiscriminate and inaccurate barrel bombs and other munitions during the Syrian Civil War over ~520 weeks (~364 active) that constitute a war crime and gross violation of international norms: 600. Total number of self defence actions with precision munitions on supposed medical facilities with (oh so very) clandestine military use in the Israel Gaza War that were 100% necessary and absolutely not war crimes, over ~14 weeks: 660. 30x the Israeli strikes on health facilities by time. Now I wonder about by population as well... 300x the rate you say? Thank goodness they're the most moral army in the world, moderated further by Joe Biden's influence and limited even further by the strident criticism in the free press, eh. Otherwise they might have been limited to Assad's rookie numbers. Edited January 24 by Zoraptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 11 hours ago, Zoraptor said: ICJ is going to announce any preliminary measures this week. Not a decision on the main case but on RSA's request for an injunction to stop Israel's attacks. Interesting statistic for the day, total number of deliberate and premeditated attacks on healthcare facilities with indiscriminate and inaccurate barrel bombs and other munitions during the Syrian Civil War over ~520 weeks (~364 active) that constitute a war crime and gross violation of international norms: 600. Total number of self defence actions with precision munitions on supposed medical facilities with (oh so very) clandestine military use in the Israel Gaza War that were 100% necessary and absolutely not war crimes, over ~14 weeks: 660. 30x the Israeli strikes on health facilities by time. Now I wonder about by population as well... 300x the rate you say? Thank goodness they're the most moral army in the world, moderated further by Joe Biden's influence and limited even further by the strident criticism in the free press, eh. Otherwise they might have been limited to Assad's rookie numbers. Do you support the rulings of institutions like the ICJ and ICC as legitimate? I do because they the qualified and authoritative international bodies that rules on matters like war crimes and genocide and I trust there understanding of these things because Im not a lawyer or remotely qualified to decide when something is a valid legal point based on the presented evidence So what Im asking is lets say they rule that Israel is not committing genocide, not this ruling tomorrow, will you accept it as a legitimate outcome? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melkathi Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 I think the "release all hostages for a non permanent ceasefire" idea is terrible and intended to force Hamas to reject it. In essence it says "give up the tiny shred of leverage you have, and we'll pause before we continue bombing you into dust. We'll still kill everyone, but we'll have a break before continuing." My response too would then be "Err, no?" Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 6 minutes ago, melkathi said: I think the "release all hostages for a non permanent ceasefire" idea is terrible and intended to force Hamas to reject it. In essence it says "give up the tiny shred of leverage you have, and we'll pause before we continue bombing you into dust. We'll still kill everyone, but we'll have a break before continuing." My response too would then be "Err, no?" Fair enough, I have heard that sentiment expressed before. So whats your suggestion, the war should continue and no ceasefire ? Because Netanyahu has a legitimate argument to say " we wont stop the invasion until the hostages are released " but if the hostages are released it creates even more domestic and international pressure on him to end the invasion of Gaza and pressure is real for a permanent ceasefire So in other words isnt it better to release the hostages for the Palestinians than to not release the hostages? Its not better for Hamas but Im sure we mostly concerned about the Palestinians and not a terrorist organization like Hamas? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melkathi Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Netanyahu 's position isn't "we won't stop until the hostages are released" if his position also is "if the hostages are released we won't stop". I want a full permanent ceasefire (and obviously Netanyahu jailed in Azkaban). But you can't have a full ceasefire when one party says they are not willing to accept a full ceasefire. Hostages returned for a full ceasefire was on the table until now, constantly rejected by Israel. So stop trying to make it look as if the rest of us are against a ceasefire and look at the terrorists you so vehemently support with your crocodile tears. 1 Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 2 hours ago, melkathi said: Netanyahu 's position isn't "we won't stop until the hostages are released" if his position also is "if the hostages are released we won't stop". I want a full permanent ceasefire (and obviously Netanyahu jailed in Azkaban). But you can't have a full ceasefire when one party says they are not willing to accept a full ceasefire. Hostages returned for a full ceasefire was on the table until now, constantly rejected by Israel. So stop trying to make it look as if the rest of us are against a ceasefire and look at the terrorists you so vehemently support with your crocodile tears. But there wont be ceasefire or any chance of a ceasefire if the hostages arent released Surely you must realize that? And saying something like " there must a ceasefire without this or Netanyahu must be jailed " is like thinking Putin is going to hand himself over to the ICC Its completely unrealistic, Im talking about practical and realistic solutions. Not emotional ones "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 9 hours ago, melkathi said: Netanyahu 's position isn't "we won't stop until the hostages are released" if his position also is "if the hostages are released we won't stop". I want a full permanent ceasefire (and obviously Netanyahu jailed in Azkaban). But you can't have a full ceasefire when one party says they are not willing to accept a full ceasefire. Hostages returned for a full ceasefire was on the table until now, constantly rejected by Israel. So stop trying to make it look as if the rest of us are against a ceasefire and look at the terrorists you so vehemently support with your crocodile tears. Neither Netanhyahu or Hamas want full ceasefire. Offers of ceasefire is just to show for world and looking time for resupply. In political sense Netanhyahu has little to gain from the ceasefire, he has failed in what has been his driving promise, to keep Israel safe. The war in Gaza will prevent his ousting at least for the time and gives him opportunity to ensure that he will not lose his political power. Also it seem that big sunk of people of Israel aren't keen to see war ending before Hamas is destroyed which probably will not happen anytime soon. Hamas has hostages because of act of terrorism, it has no legimate reason to keep hostages and it does not seem to have any clear goal what they want to achieve with the hostages. And Hamas does not promise to stop their attacks to Israel even in case Israel promises full ceasefire and because of Hamas' structure they probably don't even have ability to make such promise even if their leadership wanted to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 They have had ceasefires with no cross border incidents before, Hamas is able to enforce them if it wants to (and with acceptance that they don't have absolute control over, say, Islamic Jihad). Israel also has a... rather large number of Palestinians in administrative detention. Much like 'collateral damage' being a euphemism for killing civilians that is a euphemism for kidnapping people off the streets to be held indefinitely without charge or access to lawyers, and often subjected to torture as well. It's one of the reasons I dislike 'terrorism' as a term; a country can't commit it for the sole reason that countries have defined it as something only non state actors do. DGSE agents don't get to not be terrorists for blowing up boats here just because they work for France, Shin Bet don't get not be either just because they work for Israel. 11 hours ago, melkathi said: (and obviously Netanyahu jailed in Azkaban) Seems a bit harsh that. Not sure even dementors deserve to be shut in with Bibi. 12 hours ago, BruceVC said: Do you support the rulings of institutions like the ICJ and ICC as legitimate? ICJ, sure. ICC, lol. The ICC is a 30s Sicilian Court and the west is the Cosa Nostra. You might get some legitimate ruling when the Dons aren't involved, but never when they are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melkathi Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 hours ago, Elerond said: Neither Netanhyahu or Hamas want full ceasefire. Offers of ceasefire is just to show for world and looking time for resupply. In political sense Netanhyahu has little to gain from the ceasefire, he has failed in what has been his driving promise, to keep Israel safe. The war in Gaza will prevent his ousting at least for the time and gives him opportunity to ensure that he will not lose his political power. Also it seem that big sunk of people of Israel aren't keen to see war ending before Hamas is destroyed which probably will not happen anytime soon. I think Netanyahu has exactly that to gain. If he got the hostages released, then on the Homefront he can possibly get at least the families of the hostages to back off a bit. Or divide them at least. Have those families busy taking care of their freed and obviously traumatized relatives. Nurse them back to health - all of Gaza is starving, obviously the hostages are too. At the same time, what preliminary measures could the ICJ impose when there is a ceasefire? He'd "win" the first round in the south Africa case by taking away what they seek measures against.* Then, two months later, with the ICJ case in the next, slow stage, he'd simply start the war again, with greater hone support, as there would be no fear of killing hostages, just land to grab for the settlers and "human animals" to exterminate. He'd just have to hang on for two months by bombing Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan and keeping things heated with Hesbolah (spelling?). Mind you, just theorising. * I do believe the ICJ would have loved a ceasefire, to get them out of having to rule on preliminary measures. Which also is a reason for Hamas Not to want one. Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elerond Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 13 minutes ago, melkathi said: I think Netanyahu has exactly that to gain. If he got the hostages released, then on the Homefront he can possibly get at least the families of the hostages to back off a bit. Or divide them at least. Have those families busy taking care of their freed and obviously traumatized relatives. Nurse them back to health - all of Gaza is starving, obviously the hostages are too. At the same time, what preliminary measures could the ICJ impose when there is a ceasefire? He'd "win" the first round in the south Africa case by taking away what they seek measures against.* Then, two months later, with the ICJ case in the next, slow stage, he'd simply start the war again, with greater hone support, as there would be no fear of killing hostages, just land to grab for the settlers and "human animals" to exterminate. He'd just have to hang on for two months by bombing Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan and keeping things heated with Hesbolah (spelling?). Mind you, just theorising. * I do believe the ICJ would have loved a ceasefire, to get them out of having to rule on preliminary measures. Which also is a reason for Hamas Not to want one. Ceasefire or no ceasefire should not any way impact on ICJ's verdict is or isn't Israel committing genocide in Gaza. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melkathi Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Not the verdict. That will come in years if ever. But the preliminary measures have no teeth if there is a ceasefire. The ICJ can hardly order Israel to stop bombing, if it has a ceasefire and isn't bombing. Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 39 minutes ago, melkathi said: But the preliminary measures have no teeth if there is a ceasefire. The ICJ can hardly order Israel to stop bombing, if it has a ceasefire and isn't bombing. Preliminary measures will have no teeth anyway, since there's no enforcement mechanism. It would be politically embarrassing for someone like Rishi Sunak to keep selling weapons, maybe, but then Kair Starmer is barely less a fan of killing Gazan children than Sunak is. Politically embarrassing for Scholtz too, since he joined in the defence but ultimately I'd expect whatever wiggle room there is to be used to the fullest, and the press to largely go along with it. In the end the only party that really matters to Israel is the US, and Biden has already said that no matter what they will support Israel. Which of course leads to Israel blithely ignoring all the suggestions Blinken et al make... They could order Israel not to resume bombing even if they'd paused it. Though something as blanket as that seems... unlikely since there are legitimate reasons for some bombing. So the most likely phrasing would be something like 'indiscriminate bombing'/ 'disproportionate targeting of civilians' etc- and there's the wiggle room that was being looked for above. Far more likely would be orders to stop arbitrarily destroying homes (hard to feel much sympathy at all for the 21 Israeli soldiers blown up by their own mines while doing so a couple of days ago) and infrastructure, medical facilities, allow more food in and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 (edited) 11 hours ago, Elerond said: Neither Netanhyahu or Hamas want full ceasefire. Offers of ceasefire is just to show for world and looking time for resupply. In political sense Netanhyahu has little to gain from the ceasefire, he has failed in what has been his driving promise, to keep Israel safe. The war in Gaza will prevent his ousting at least for the time and gives him opportunity to ensure that he will not lose his political power. Also it seem that big sunk of people of Israel aren't keen to see war ending before Hamas is destroyed which probably will not happen anytime soon. Hamas has hostages because of act of terrorism, it has no legimate reason to keep hostages and it does not seem to have any clear goal what they want to achieve with the hostages. And Hamas does not promise to stop their attacks to Israel even in case Israel promises full ceasefire and because of Hamas' structure they probably don't even have ability to make such promise even if their leadership wanted to do so. I agree with most of this, Netanyahu is done politically once the war is over so dragging on the war is his way of thinking he can avoid the inevitable political consequence of his failures to protect Israel But if the hostages are released this puts more pressure to end the war because its been over 3 months since the invasion started and Hamas is still fighting but if you could release all the hostages then it becomes much harder for Netanyahu to motivate the war continuing even if thinks its better for his political survival But if the hostages are not released that continues to be a legitimate reason to continue to fight because Netanyahu can claim " Hamas is holding hostages " we must fight for them And then of course Hamas has zero interest in whats best for the Palestinians, it truly boggles my mind that since 7 October anyone could argue things are better for the Palestinians. Things are worse for both Israel and the Palestinians in different ways but much worse for the Palestinians But a permanent ceasefire is needed and new leadership in Israel is required for serious discussions about a 2 state solution which I still maintain is the only real solution for sustainable peace for both Israel and the Palestinians Edited January 26 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 (edited) 7 hours ago, Zoraptor said: Preliminary measures will have no teeth anyway, since there's no enforcement mechanism. It would be politically embarrassing for someone like Rishi Sunak to keep selling weapons, maybe, but then Kair Starmer is barely less a fan of killing Gazan children than Sunak is. Politically embarrassing for Scholtz too, since he joined in the defence but ultimately I'd expect whatever wiggle room there is to be used to the fullest, and the press to largely go along with it. In the end the only party that really matters to Israel is the US, and Biden has already said that no matter what they will support Israel. Which of course leads to Israel blithely ignoring all the suggestions Blinken et al make... They could order Israel not to resume bombing even if they'd paused it. Though something as blanket as that seems... unlikely since there are legitimate reasons for some bombing. So the most likely phrasing would be something like 'indiscriminate bombing'/ 'disproportionate targeting of civilians' etc- and there's the wiggle room that was being looked for above. Far more likely would be orders to stop arbitrarily destroying homes (hard to feel much sympathy at all for the 21 Israeli soldiers blown up by their own mines while doing so a couple of days ago) and infrastructure, medical facilities, allow more food in and the like. But what about the moral and legal success of the ruling, so SA " winning " the ICJ case matters in that sense and how people will reflect on it In other words its not binding action because the ICJ cant enforce that but the ruling matters around sentiment and the evidence presented. I am literally basing my future views on that in this conflict in the same way I reflect on all ICJ and ICC cases As you know Im critical of the inconsistency of SA foreign policy outrage but Im not questioning the validity of this case, the ICJ needs to make a ruling and we should all accept that ruling Edited January 26 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/china-presses-iran-rein-houthi-attacks-red-sea-sources-say-2024-01-26/ Now China is getting involved to end the terrorism and criminality we seeing in the Red Sea committed by the Houthis It was inevitable "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 I didnt watch the ruling but I have read analysis , it seems very reasonable and fair https://www.nbcnews.com/news/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna135801 This is a summary " The International Court of Justice has ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences though the court has no power to enforce it. The United Nations' top court stopped short of ordering a cease-fire requested by South Africa while it hears the full case accusing Israel of genocide" "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now