Gaza - conflict, war, land, water rights, bad colonional legacies...

[melkathi]

Bruce, we hope the ruling will be based on the evidence. Because any person who honestly looks at the facts knows that Israel is guilty.

But the individual judges aren't impartial. They are human beings and part of the societies they grew up in. People will always expect a US American to not vote based on facts but on US policy. As a German citizen I am not going to trust the German judge until he proves me wrong. He is more than welcome to do so. But if you were to follow the nosedive in freedom of press in Germany the past few years, the extreme bias in reporting, not just on this issue, I am terrified of the direction Germany is heading. We have seen where that leads before.

And of course everyone will expect the judge from Lebanon to vote against Israel.

[Keyrock]

5 minutes ago, melkathi said:

But if you were to follow the nosedive in freedom of press in Germany the past few years, the extreme bias in reporting, not just on this issue, I am terrified of the direction Germany is heading.

I can, and have, in fact, say the same thing about Murica. It seems to not just be the US and Germany either. I mean, I can say the US beyond a shadow of a doubt, because I live here and I've witnessed it with my own eyes time and again, but it seems to be most of western and central Europe too. I can't say if it's a coordinated effort, but when it's simultaneously happening in Murica, Canada, and most of western and central Europe... My spidey senses are going off.

Back to the matter at hand, I have no horse in this race. I have no allegiance nor enmity to neither Israel nor Palestine. What I care bout is, in order of importance:

1) The killing stops

2) Justice is served

[uuuhhii]

one can say the same thing about every part of the world

the inevitable collapse promised by the pursuit of endless growth is very obvious now

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, melkathi said:

Bruce, we hope the ruling will be based on the evidence. Because any person who honestly looks at the facts knows that Israel is guilty.

But the individual judges aren't impartial. They are human beings and part of the societies they grew up in. People will always expect a US American to not vote based on facts but on US policy. As a German citizen I am not going to trust the German judge until he proves me wrong. He is more than welcome to do so. But if you were to follow the nosedive in freedom of press in Germany the past few years, the extreme bias in reporting, not just on this issue, I am terrified of the direction Germany is heading. We have seen where that leads before.

And of course everyone will expect the judge from Lebanon to vote against Israel.

ICJ's rulings don't have much of impact, like for example

 

[Malcador]

Morocco will be onside with the US' wishes, they were bribed to normalize relations with Israel after all.  Jamaica will probably also go along with the US.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, melkathi said:

But if you were to follow the nosedive in freedom of press in Germany the past few years, the extreme bias in reporting, not just on this issue, I am terrified of the direction Germany is heading.

Isn't Germany making a 3rd party submission to the court on Israel's behalf as well?

5 hours ago, melkathi said:

The court could dismiss on that if they really wanted to, but they must know that it will destroy the institution if they do, as countries outside the west will completely lose all faith in the system, worse than the prospect of Sting ever losing his faith in you.

I guess the question is whether they actually care about that. Is the purpose of 'international law' to have an actual rules based system that limits power and is fair to everyone, or so people can say that it exists to legitimise themselves...

The answer for the ICC is pretty obviously the latter, at least under Karim Khan. The ICJ is an older institution though with less susceptibility to influence and even setting Khan aside without some of the more, uh, interesting built in aspects of the ICC like allowing western countries to investigate themselves.

Sting never loses his faith in you, no idea why he even wrote the song. He's infamous for having people betray him but not learning- Ric Flair, Lex Luger etc. Wouldn't be a surprise if Flair betrays him once more for old times' sake too.

[Keyrock]

28 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Sting never loses his faith in you, no idea why he even wrote the song. He's infamous for having people betray him but not learning- Ric Flair, Lex Luger etc. Wouldn't be a surprise if Flair betrays him once more for old times' sake too.

I'm going to be there in Greensboro to watch the Horsemen beat him down one last time.

[melkathi]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

Isn't Germany making a 3rd party submission to the court on Israel's behalf as well?

 

Yes,

no wonder they keep banning me from voting.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think a big reason why Germany is intervening, beyond the German government being extremely invested in Zionism for ideological and economic reasons, is that if Israel is found to be committing genocide* then Germany becomes an accomplice because they sold Israel a substantial amount of weaponry and backed them politically throughout the slaughter of Gaza. And because Germany has criminalized genocide denial, this means pretty much every member of the German government is now a criminal based on their own law. Of course I think it's likely that Germany just sidesteps a hypothetical guilty verdict, what good is the law if you can't rewrite it after all, but it's at the very least a legal kerfuffle that will need to get sorted out.

*I think it's clear that Israel is committing genocide, what I mean is to have a legal institution declare that to be the case officially.

[Malcador]

https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/14/100-days-into-the-war-netanyahu-says-no-one-will-stop-us

Rules based order working as intended.

[Keyrock]

If there's one positive to take away from this, and I'm reaching here, is that it's been plainly and obviously revealed to the rest of the world, anyone not tightly shutting their eyes, covering their ears, and yelling "LALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" that is, what many of us already knew, and that's Bibi is a horrific monster. I would be willing to bet a large percentage of my savings that he had Rabin murdered decades ago.

[Zoraptor]

That would probably have been (in the entirely hypothetical situation of actual support for Amir instead of the historical rhetorical scene setting and claims of treason etc against Rabin; then again, Itamar "Baruch Goldstein" ben-Gvir exists...) Ariel Sharon rather than Netanyahu. At that point Bibi was only really well known because of his brother, who died at Entebbe, iirc, hence the classic Bibi targeting insult of the wrong brother dying. It was also before he and his wife went on their massive payola spree and he didn't have to be PM to avoid being in jail. Now, he'd do pretty much anything to retain power though. He'd probably start by arresting all the Arab MK members or similar rather than trying to assassinate Yair Lapid or whatever though.

2 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

I think a big reason why Germany is intervening, beyond the German government being extremely invested in Zionism for ideological and economic reasons, is that if Israel is found to be committing genocide* then Germany becomes an accomplice because they sold Israel a substantial amount of weaponry and backed them politically throughout the slaughter of Gaza. And because Germany has criminalized genocide denial, this means pretty much every member of the German government is now a criminal based on their own law. Of course I think it's likely that Germany just sidesteps a hypothetical guilty verdict, what good is the law if you can't rewrite it after all, but it's at the very least a legal kerfuffle that will need to get sorted out.

I doubt anyone could be charged retroactively with genocide denial. If it wasn't designated one at the time you said it you should be safe. Could be (from what I hear is, but with all the obvious provisos applying) a stupidly written law, but those are usually written that way to allow for targeted prosecutions of people you don't like, and the German Government isn't likely to target itself. Deliberately, at least, given the upsurge in interest in events in Namibia in 1908 backing Israel may have been stupid for reasons other than simple optics.

A ruling might stop weapon shipments and overt political support but, well, the west isn't exactly great with honouring court judgements that go against them. Ask Mauritius when they're getting Diego Garcia back despite the 13-1 (the US judge, ho hum, drones gotta drone) ICJ ruling and the supplemental 116-6 (lol) UNGA vote.

Edited January 15 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, melkathi said:

Bruce, we hope the ruling will be based on the evidence. Because any person who honestly looks at the facts knows that Israel is guilty.

But the individual judges aren't impartial. They are human beings and part of the societies they grew up in. People will always expect a US American to not vote based on facts but on US policy. As a German citizen I am not going to trust the German judge until he proves me wrong. He is more than welcome to do so. But if you were to follow the nosedive in freedom of press in Germany the past few years, the extreme bias in reporting, not just on this issue, I am terrified of the direction Germany is heading. We have seen where that leads before.

And of course everyone will expect the judge from Lebanon to vote against Israel.

I think you might be misunderstanding my point or Im misunderstanding your point 

There is common response throughout the world when institutions  like the ICC or ICJ make rulings   or issue warrants that people have opinions on those  outcomes based on their   own bias or ideological views.  Its not  based on if country x    or person y  is really guilty or not. And the main difference between the ICC and ICJ is the ICC prosecutes people and the ICJ prosecutes countries.  Here is a link and summary of the difference  

https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/news/2024/01/89269/what-international-court-justice-and-why-does-it-matter#:~:text=The simplest way to explain,crimes or crimes against humanity.

"  There is frequent confusion between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice

The simplest way to explain the difference is that ICJ cases involve countries, and the ICC is a criminal court, which brings cases against individuals for war crimes or crimes against humanity. 

Also, whilst the ICJ is an organ of the United Nations, the ICC is legally independent of the UN, although it is endorsed by the General Assembly.

While not all 193 UN Member States are parties to the ICC, it can launch investigations and open cases related to alleged crimes committed on the territory or by a national of a State party to the ICC or of a State that has accepted its jurisdiction. 

Cases have been heard and decisions rendered on a range of violations, from using rape as a weapon of war to conscripting children as combatants" 

So for example when Putin was issued with an ICC warrant this was immediately dismissed by Russian supporters,  anti-West groups and  Vatniks including many people within South Africa   yet 9 months later  many of those same people, specifically from South Africa,  now   believe the ICC   is credible and we must support  it against Israel because  SA has also taken Israel to the ICC and not just  the ICJ. This is just one example of selective and inconsistent outrage and how some people and countries flip-flop on support  or belief when it comes   to the ICC or the ICJ

And this matters to what you originally said " as countries outside the west will completely lose all faith in the system, worse than the prospect of Sting ever losing his faith in you."

This ruling is not going change  what countries or people think about the system. Most people already dismiss or support these institutions based on what country is involved 

But it will always matter  to the people who are victims or the targets  of genocide, the likes of the ICC  and ICJ will always matter to them because these are international institutions and victims have no  other options

It was Gambia that took   Myanmar to the ICJ for the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims and this matters  to the Rohingya even if others are cynical about the ICJ

https://iimm.un.org/icj-the-gambia-v-myanmar/#:~:text=The Gambia brought the case,the Genocide Convention in 1956.

End of the day these  allegations of  genocide is  about the  legal and technical definition of genocide and that will be decided by 17 judges.  Im woefully unqualified to give an opinion on the hours of presented evidence by both sides...I also  only watched about 1 hour of the total submissions. I generally find this types of legal cases boring and repetitive    

 

So  I will the read the final opinions of the ICJ and comment further then.  Because  that will be summary of the evidence presented  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zoraptor]

RSA doesn't think the ICC will go after Bibi et al for war crimes in Palestine though. Their noise isn't about actually getting the ICC to do its job- they don't expect that at all- so much as making it very, very obvious that it isn't, and is selectively prosecuting. If they can establish that the ICC is effectively- and personally, it's pretty indisputable at this point that the word is applicable - corrupt/ not fit for purpose then they can withdraw from it without the courts intervening as they did when they tried it over the Putin ruling.

The best way to show that is to establish and highlight a pattern of inconsistency. Fortunately for them Karim Khan- a veritable prosecutorial Usain Bolt vs Putin- suddenly became Eric the Eel when it's Netanyahu and pals involved.

[Gorth]

An interesting article by the BBC on the "tatzpitaniyot" unit. Israel's "eyes and ears" watching Gaza and reporting Hamas movements to the Israeli military and intelligence services.

People asks how the intelligence services could fail so badly when the October 7th attack happened. So, the BBC went digging into this unit, being made up entirely of young female conscripts (which doesn't bear arms btw, their job is to watch and observe all day long and report whenever they spot something unusual).

Turns out they spotted a lot. From the regular farmers being replaced by unknown faces setting up shop next to the wall, taking pictures to Hamas units shifting from fitness training to commando raid drills. The last two weeks before the attack, they rang the alarm bells and... the BBC couldn't find out how far up the command chain the information went, but it got somehow suppressed from above. Many of the young women in the report got killed on October 7th, but BBC got access to some of the whatsapp conversations between unit members as well as between unit members and their family (sending last farewells etc. a day or two before the attack happened) and frustration expressed by them effectively being gagged. BBC doesn't mention names (too canny for that), but leaves it to the reader to wonder someone in the Israeli government could have an interest in preventing any action being taken that could've prevented the attack (and by extension if anyone had an interest in starting a war)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67958260

[Keyrock]

I'm not saying that Bibi & Co. let those people die on purpose on Oct 7th, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

[HoonDing]

I think they let it happen but also vastly underestimated the extent of the coming attacks, expecting just a bunch of dudes with slingshots and decades old kalashnikovs.

Which is why they then lashed out in utter panic, shooting their own citizens with attack helicopters.

[uuuhhii]

1 hour ago, HoonDing said:

I think they let it happen but also vastly underestimated the extent of the coming attacks, expecting just a bunch of dudes with slingshots and decades old kalashnikovs.

Which is why they then lashed out in utter panic, shooting their own citizens with attack helicopters.

after all their enemy is simultaneously overwhelmingly powerful and despicably weak

[Zoraptor]

The main problem with any 'they let it happen' theories is that we don't really know the circumstantial context. If Hamas were actively obfuscating things you'd get complacency setting in from a series of (deliberate) false alarms. We don't know how often Egyptian intelligence warns Israel of stuff that doesn't eventuate, we don't know if Hamas ran a bunch of fake comms spikes or whether they'd regularly switch up drills or scout out the border fence. We only know all those things happened before October 7.

I find it pretty hard to believe that Netanyahu knew beforehand. Don't get me wrong: he's clearly 100% capable of letting his own people die to further his own ends, especially those who probably wouldn't be voting for him anyway. On October 6th he didn't really need to do anything like that though, certainly nothing to justify the risk of things going wrong. Now, he's politically dead he just hasn't stopped breathing yet. That more than anything is why he's desperate to keep the fighting going for months or longer- the precedent was set 50 years almost to the day earlier by Golda Meir.

The circumstances under which he would have known beforehand would have been specific and require a hefty dose of collusion from multiple agencies, not all of which are friendly to him.

Edited January 15 by Zoraptor

[xzar_monty]

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The main problem with any 'they let it happen' theories is that we don't really know the circumstantial context. If Hamas were actively obfuscating things you'd get complacency setting in from a series of (deliberate) false alarms. We don't know how often Egyptian intelligence warns Israel of stuff that doesn't eventuate, we don't know if Hamas ran a bunch of fake comms spikes or whether they'd regularly switch up drills or scout out the border fence. We only know all those things happened before October 7.

This is a really good explanation of how these things can be so poorly understood and, also, why conspiracy-type thinking can be so common. It's not easy to grasp the complexities of a situation, look at it from the right perspective and analyse the probabilities of various scenarios.

I am reminded of the Sally Clark case where she was sentenced for murder because there happened to be two cases of sudden infant death syndrome in her family. It's easy to argue that someone had to be a murderer because having two cases of SIDS in one family is just so unlikely. But you only have to look at it from a different perspective to begin to understand why it could happen. I mean: given all the families and all the births in the world, what are the odds of that happening sometime somewhere? It's going to happen, but it's going to be very rare.

[BruceVC]

https://www.primediaplus.com/sa-has-failed-to-prove-genocidal-intent-by-israel-in-gaza-says-international-law-expert/

Here is another interview with Professor Andre Thomashusen, an emeritus professor of comparative and international law at Unisa but this is his reflections   after the ICJ evidence was presented and again he doesnt think SA made  a very compelling case

Its only 11 minutes  and I  encourage  everyone to listen to it  and particularly for  those people who dont have a firm opinion on this issue and for those who are  more pedantic about when something is genocide based  on the legal definition and not  the emotion or what we see through SM or  the general media

And again this is his opinion as someone qualified in the field  of international  law but the final ruling will come from the ICJ 

 

 

 

[BruceVC]

12 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

The main problem with any 'they let it happen' theories is that we don't really know the circumstantial context. If Hamas were actively obfuscating things you'd get complacency setting in from a series of (deliberate) false alarms. We don't know how often Egyptian intelligence warns Israel of stuff that doesn't eventuate, we don't know if Hamas ran a bunch of fake comms spikes or whether they'd regularly switch up drills or scout out the border fence. We only know all those things happened before October 7.

I find it pretty hard to believe that Netanyahu knew beforehand. Don't get me wrong: he's clearly 100% capable of letting his own people die to further his own ends, especially those who probably wouldn't be voting for him anyway. On October 6th he didn't really need to do anything like that though, certainly nothing to justify the risk of things going wrong. Now, he's politically dead he just hasn't stopped breathing yet. That more than anything is why he's desperate to keep the fighting going for months or longer- the precedent was set 50 years almost to the day earlier by Golda Meir.

The circumstances under which he would have known beforehand would have been specific and require a hefty dose of collusion from multiple agencies, not all of which are friendly to him.

I do think he is a really bad leader for  whats best for Israel, I dont believe he knew about the attacks because the surprise attack has  inexorably undermined  much of his right-wing rhetoric which is "  I am best person to protect the Jewish homeland, stick with me " 

And his political career is over once this latest war is over.  He has demonstrated he doesnt mind creating political or societal chaos  in Israel if it suits his right-wing views,  like when he wanted  to make those changes around the courts authority and the powers of the Knesset 

But I dont  believe he would willingly allow Jews to die if they knew Hamas was going to attack on the 7 October 

 

 

[Elerond]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I do think he is a really bad leader for  whats best for Israel, I dont believe he knew about the attacks because the surprise attack has  inexorably undermined  much of his right-wing rhetoric which is "  I am best person to protect the Jewish homeland, stick with me " 

And his political career is over once this latest war is over.  He has demonstrated he doesnt mind creating political or societal chaos  in Israel if it suits his right-wing views,  like when he wanted  to make those changes around the courts authority and the powers of the Knesset 

But I dont  believe he would willingly allow Jews to die if they knew Hamas was going to attack on the 7 October 

He was warned multiple times that Hamas was planning to attack, but those warnings were ignored mainly because over confidence in Israel's defenses and stubborn thinking that Hamas does not have capacity to attack even though evidence showed differently

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67958260

[uuuhhii]

yes the legal definition

that is the important thing after a colony displace and massacre millions for decades

Edited January 16 by uuuhhii

[Elerond]

Legal definition is most important thing in a court