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

[Zoraptor]

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?

[Zoraptor]

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

[BruceVC]

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

[Zoraptor]

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.

[BruceVC]

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 " 

 

 

 

 

[Zoraptor]

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.

[BruceVC]

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

[Zoraptor]

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.

[BruceVC]

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 

 

 

[Zoraptor]

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

[BruceVC]

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[melkathi]

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?"

[BruceVC]

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?

[melkathi]

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.

[BruceVC]

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 

 

 

[Elerond]

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.

[Zoraptor]

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.

[melkathi]

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.

[Elerond]

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. 

[melkathi]

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.

[Zoraptor]

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.

[BruceVC]

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

[BruceVC]

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

[BruceVC]

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 

 

 

[BruceVC]

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"