Malcador Posted January 26 Posted January 26 https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ben-gvir-slams-icj-as-antisemitic-says-israel-should-ignore-ruling-on-provisional-measures/ "“The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people. They were silent during the Holocaust and today they continue the hypocrisy and take it another step further,” he says. The ICJ in its current iteration was founded in 1945." Point to the Times for that last sentence. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
BruceVC Posted January 26 Author Posted January 26 Here is better summary of the rulings These are the provisional measures ordered by the court: 1. 15-2, Israel must take measures to prevent genocide 2. 15-2, Israel must ensure the military is complying with the prevention of genocide 3. 16-1, Israel must take all measures to prevent and punish incitement to genocide 4. 16-1, Israel must take measures to provision humanitarian aid to Gaza 5. 15-2, Israel must take measures to prevent destruction of evidence of genocide 6. 15-2, Israel must submit a report on it's actions toward these measures within 1 month "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
BruceVC Posted January 26 Author Posted January 26 10 minutes ago, Malcador said: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ben-gvir-slams-icj-as-antisemitic-says-israel-should-ignore-ruling-on-provisional-measures/ "“The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people. They were silent during the Holocaust and today they continue the hypocrisy and take it another step further,” he says. The ICJ in its current iteration was founded in 1945." Point to the Times for that last sentence. Thats to be expected from the likes of Ben Gvir People play cards all the time and this is the classic anti-semitism card "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
Zoraptor Posted January 26 Posted January 26 Ben-Gvir and Bezazel Smotirch probably feel personally attacked by the no incitement order. About as much as could reasonably have been expected given that a blanket ceasefire order was always unlikely, and a clear diplomatic loss for Israel. The US response (~no ceasefire order, no ruling of genocide [not going to happen in a preliminary ruling] and telling Hamas to release hostages --> it's an Israeli victory!) is far better than the Israeli tossing of toys out of cot even if it's so specific a take on the ruling as to be a functional lie. Unfortunately, as prior, it also gives a huge amount of wiggle room to Israel's supporters. Even the Israeli judge voted for two of the measures.
melkathi Posted January 26 Posted January 26 Actually, for a ceasefire to be ordered, there needs to be a formal war and two waring sides. At least many analysts say that, so apparently those of us who hoped for the words ceasefire simply didn't know we were hoping for something unattainable legally. The order to not kill members of the protected group though is a clear order that Israel must not kill any Palestinians. The US response, while "better" than the Israeli one, is still a ridiculous spin. Israel's accusation now that UN aid workers were part of the 7. October attack is preposterous. Blinken's statement that the US would now cut funds to the UN (specifically the UNRW or how it's spelled) so as to not provide aid to starving Palestinians, just demonstrates that the Biden administration is pure evil. Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise).
Malcador Posted January 26 Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, melkathi said: Israel's accusation now that UN aid workers were part of the 7. October attack is preposterous. Blinken's statement that the US would now cut funds to the UN (specifically the UNRW or how it's spelled) so as to not provide aid to starving Palestinians, just demonstrates that the Biden administration is pure evil. Is a common accusation that UNRWA helps fund Hamas more or less directly but is one of those accusations I've seen so often and applied widely. Can't find anywhere what the condition to restore the funding is, if any. Shouldn't expect Blinken et al. to care about dead or starving Palestinian beyond looking sad. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Elerond Posted January 26 Posted January 26 5 hours ago, Malcador said: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ben-gvir-slams-icj-as-antisemitic-says-israel-should-ignore-ruling-on-provisional-measures/ "“The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people. They were silent during the Holocaust and today they continue the hypocrisy and take it another step further,” he says. The ICJ in its current iteration was founded in 1945." Point to the Times for that last sentence. Statues of ICJ are same that it predecessor PCIJ, it name just changed when League of Nations was replaced with UN. Name change didn't make it any better in making itself look like that is impartial, fair and just court instead of political tool which decisions often escalate conflicts and rarely prevents them. Also ICC was first international court bring up charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in 2005 against Joseph Kony Alleged Commander-in-Chief of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) (He has yet to face trial). Betweem 1946-2005 there were quite many conflicts where genocidal actions did take a place and ICJ failed in every case to make any actions to prevent them, punish for them or even say they were bad. I think that Israel is wrong in their accusation that ICJ is antisemitic, it is just useless institution. Just look this ruling - Israel needs to do something to prevent genocide in Gaza, but they don't give any actual guidance or ordinance. And as there is no enforcement, other than push back from other countries. I am sure that intent is that countries will politically pressure Israel to be more "human" in their bombing spree, but it also give Israel enemies excuse to use military actions against them. I am sure that USA will be pathetic in their response, but if they had bit more political willingness to take hard line against Israel they could use ruling as stick to force South Africa and others BRICS - R countries to decrease their support for Russia, as Russia ignored ICJ ruling to stop their attack to Ukraine and BRICS countries have not shown any care for it. So as this ruling was because case that South Africa brought to court USA could easily use it to forward their global political agenda by using it as excuse to put trade and other sanctions against countries that supported the case but have not condemned Russia or/and support Russia (and/or China). But USA has too many internal political struggles to be effective in global politics like they used to be during Cold War.
uuuhhii Posted January 26 Posted January 26 6 minutes ago, Elerond said: Statues of ICJ are same that it predecessor PCIJ, it name just changed when League of Nations was replaced with UN. Name change didn't make it any better in making itself look like that is impartial, fair and just court instead of political tool which decisions often escalate conflicts and rarely prevents them. Also ICC was first international court bring up charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in 2005 against Joseph Kony Alleged Commander-in-Chief of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) (He has yet to face trial). Betweem 1946-2005 there were quite many conflicts where genocidal actions did take a place and ICJ failed in every case to make any actions to prevent them, punish for them or even say they were bad. I think that Israel is wrong in their accusation that ICJ is antisemitic, it is just useless institution. Just look this ruling - Israel needs to do something to prevent genocide in Gaza, but they don't give any actual guidance or ordinance. And as there is no enforcement, other than push back from other countries. I am sure that intent is that countries will politically pressure Israel to be more "human" in their bombing spree, but it also give Israel enemies excuse to use military actions against them. I am sure that USA will be pathetic in their response, but if they had bit more political willingness to take hard line against Israel they could use ruling as stick to force South Africa and others BRICS - R countries to decrease their support for Russia, as Russia ignored ICJ ruling to stop their attack to Ukraine and BRICS countries have not shown any care for it. So as this ruling was because case that South Africa brought to court USA could easily use it to forward their global political agenda by using it as excuse to put trade and other sanctions against countries that supported the case but have not condemned Russia or/and support Russia (and/or China). But USA has too many internal political struggles to be effective in global politics like they used to be during Cold War. why would usa suddenly start leading other nation to punish aggressive nation that will cultivate a bad habit that obstruct usa more than anyone
Elerond Posted January 26 Posted January 26 2 minutes ago, uuuhhii said: why would usa suddenly start leading other nation to punish aggressive nation that will cultivate a bad habit that obstruct usa more than anyone Heh, like that somehow has prevented them doing it in past
Zoraptor Posted January 27 Posted January 27 3 hours ago, Elerond said: Also ICC was first international court bring up charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in 2005 against Joseph Kony.. ICTR preceded that by a decade. ICTfY also brought genocide charges before the ICC did (indeed, the ICC was their successor entity). Quote Betweem 1946-2005 there were quite many conflicts where genocidal actions did take a place and ICJ failed in every case to make any actions to prevent them, punish for them or even say they were bad. Most were not really what the ICJ was intended for though, since the ICJ is for inter country disputes, not internal matters. You might be able to haul, say, France up before the ICJ for contributing to the Rwandan Genocide by training the Interahamwe*, you couldn't haul Rwanda up though. Especially after the government that was doing the genocide fell; that's what the UNSC is for, In Theory. *no fan of France's conduct at all, but that'd be too long a bow even for me barring some major new revelations of direct complicity. 3 hours ago, melkathi said: Actually, for a ceasefire to be ordered, there needs to be a formal war and two waring sides. They can order things that amount to a ceasefire without using the formal term for it though. They could have ordered a full cessation of the air campaign for example on the basis that it was manifestly indiscriminate/ disproportionate; it was just highly unlikely that they would. They can do pretty much anything even if no war is declared except for using certain Technical Terms that only exist between warring states. eg they ordered Russia to withdraw from Ukraine without a formal war being declared.
Elerond Posted January 27 Posted January 27 14 minutes ago, Zoraptor said: ICTR preceded that by a decade. ICTfY also brought genocide charges before the ICC did (indeed, the ICC was their successor entity). They are one case tribunals, which aren counted as official courts and their structure and rules don't fill requirements for international institution.
Zoraptor Posted January 27 Posted January 27 Eh, tribunal is a specific type of court in this context- and I can provide a plethora of sources calling it a court too, if I need to. The second part is an addition, no mention of it having to be an 'international institution' originally; but it any case they were establishedby the UN same as the ICJ so shares the exact same legitimacy. Which is the highest there is under international law. That they were established to look at a specific set of cases makes them no less an international institution than a domestic court established to look at a subset of cases- eg Family Court or the Waitangi Tribunal here- is a domestic institution.
Keyrock Posted January 27 Posted January 27 The Tribunal is Vivec, Almalexia, and Sotha Sil. I don't know what you s'wits are talking about. 1 1 RFK Jr 2024 "Any organization created out of fear must create fear to survive." - Bill Hicks
BruceVC Posted January 27 Author Posted January 27 8 hours ago, melkathi said: Israel's accusation now that UN aid workers were part of the 7. October attack is preposterous. Blinken's statement that the US would now cut funds to the UN (specifically the UNRW or how it's spelled) so as to not provide aid to starving Palestinians, just demonstrates that the Biden administration is pure evil. It doesnt concern you that several people within UNRWA could be involved in the 7 October attacks and apparently its a lot more than a few? There is an ongoing UN investigation and these people have been suspended The UNRWA is supposed to be a relief organization, its members shouldn't be helping a terrorist organisation plan attacks on Israel Maybe we should wait for the investigation from the UN before we pronounce on who is "evil " https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/middleeast/unrwa-fires-staff-members-october-7-attacks-intl/index.html "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
melkathi Posted January 27 Posted January 27 6 hours ago, Zoraptor said: They can order things that amount to a ceasefire without using the formal term for it though. They ordered Israel to prevent killing of members of the group. Prevent bodily and mental harm to members of the group. To order its military to not kill members of the group. To order it's military to not cause physical or mental harm to members of the group. The group = Palestinians in Gaza They don't even differentiate between civilians and combatants. They ordered Israel to completely cease killing people without leaving wiggle room of "it was a terrorist so it was ok". Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise).
uuuhhii Posted January 27 Posted January 27 that describe peace when soldier stop killing soldier and civilian
melkathi Posted January 27 Posted January 27 (edited) Also, note this day on the calendar, but I have to admit: Bruce was right and I was wrong. He said the judges would not be swayed by their national allegiance but solely on legal merits. I had serious doubts. In some instances, even the ad hoc judge from Israel voted with the majority. I did not see that coming. So yeah: I was wrong. Edited January 27 by melkathi 1 Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise).
Zoraptor Posted January 27 Posted January 27 1 hour ago, melkathi said: They don't even differentiate between civilians and combatants. They ordered Israel to completely cease killing people without leaving wiggle room of "it was a terrorist so it was ok". The distinction between civilians and combatants is inherent. If you're a combatant you give up a lot of protections that civilians have and are under the aegis of a different set of rules for conduct and treatment (eg Geneva Conventions) If a Gazan woman picks up an AK and tries to shoot an IDF soldier they're 100% allowed and expected to shoot back. Essentially, you cannot genocide combatants as they are legitimate targets, only protected groups (civilians). It's a pretty damning judgement for Israel, but it's not one that forces (well, 'forces') them to stop fighting entirely, just be a lot more careful and limited.
melkathi Posted January 27 Posted January 27 That makes sense. Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise).
BruceVC Posted January 27 Author Posted January 27 1 hour ago, melkathi said: Also, note this day on the calendar, but I have to admit: Bruce was right and I was wrong. He said the judges would not be swayed by their national allegiance but solely on legal merits. I had serious doubts. In some instances, even the ad hoc judge from Israel voted with the majority. I did not see that coming. So yeah: I was wrong. I appreciate the post but this debate for me wasnt about who is right or wrong when it comes to our personal views The ICJ ruling for me is about a more important broader global narrative around things like the rules based order and how institutions like the ICC and ICJ have to rule on evidence presented and not on ideological or political bias or influence. And I do believe they do that in most cases So to summarize my view on this outcome this is a win for everyone because it demonstrates the independence of the ICJ and how it functions All I want to see from countries and people is consistency on opinions when it comes to outcomes from the ICC or ICJ And then countries must abide by these rulings if they say they support the likes of the ICJ and unfortunately for me South Africa has not been consistent But thats a seperate debate, I dont want to undermine or hijack this correct outcome from the ICJ "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
Malcador Posted January 27 Posted January 27 10 hours ago, BruceVC said: It doesnt concern you that several people within UNRWA could be involved in the 7 October attacks and apparently its a lot more than a few? There is an ongoing UN investigation and these people have been suspended The UNRWA is supposed to be a relief organization, its members shouldn't be helping a terrorist organisation plan attacks on Israel Maybe we should wait for the investigation from the UN before we pronounce on who is "evil " https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/middleeast/unrwa-fires-staff-members-october-7-attacks-intl/index.html It's a concern, but people think the entire agency should be cashiered to be replaced by...an agency that would end up having the same issues as they'd have to recruit locals and they'd have the same risk of being radicalized as the ones that participated in the attacks. Not sure why UNRWA being evil or not makes any difference to the US administration being that or not. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Elerond Posted January 27 Posted January 27 12 hours ago, Zoraptor said: Eh, tribunal is a specific type of court in this context- and I can provide a plethora of sources calling it a court too, if I need to. The second part is an addition, no mention of it having to be an 'international institution' originally; but it any case they were establishedby the UN same as the ICJ so shares the exact same legitimacy. Which is the highest there is under international law. That they were established to look at a specific set of cases makes them no less an international institution than a domestic court established to look at a subset of cases- eg Family Court or the Waitangi Tribunal here- is a domestic institution. Those tribunal were temporal courts, which were created to handle one specific case, founded by countries that decided to intervene, they approved by UN, giving UN credit for establishing them is bit much in my opinion. They didn't have clear membership, clear structure of rules who can be bring up issues to the tribunal, which issues the tribunal will look and what is the international legal status of their rulings. And their existence tells how well ICJ works against genocide cases as those tribunals were established instead of taking the case in ICJ.
BruceVC Posted January 27 Author Posted January 27 3 hours ago, Malcador said: It's a concern, but people think the entire agency should be cashiered to be replaced by...an agency that would end up having the same issues as they'd have to recruit locals and they'd have the same risk of being radicalized as the ones that participated in the attacks. Not sure why UNRWA being evil or not makes any difference to the US administration being that or not. No people who work for any UN agency work for the UN, they supposed to be apolitical as far as relief is concerned. They dont take sides, have you ever of famine relief where UN only gives food to who they like? And they definitely not supposed to get involved in helping support terrorist attacks Did you read the link I posted? These are the main points The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said Israeli authorities provided the agency “with information” alleging several of its employees participated in Hamas’ murderous rampage into southern Israel, when the militant group killed at least 1,200 people and abducted more than 250 others. "These shocking allegations come as more than 2 million people in Gaza depend on lifesaving assistance that the Agency has been providing since the war began,” said Lazzarini. “Anyone who betrays the fundamental values of the United Nations also betrays those whom we serve in Gaza, across the region and elsewhere around the world”. "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
Malcador Posted January 27 Posted January 27 20 minutes ago, BruceVC said: No people who work for any UN agency work for the UN, they supposed to be apolitical as far as relief is concerned. They dont take sides, have you ever of famine relief where UN only gives food to who they like? And they definitely not supposed to get involved in helping support terrorist attacks Did you read the link I posted? These are the main points The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said Israeli authorities provided the agency “with information” alleging several of its employees participated in Hamas’ murderous rampage into southern Israel, when the militant group killed at least 1,200 people and abducted more than 250 others. "These shocking allegations come as more than 2 million people in Gaza depend on lifesaving assistance that the Agency has been providing since the war began,” said Lazzarini. “Anyone who betrays the fundamental values of the United Nations also betrays those whom we serve in Gaza, across the region and elsewhere around the world”. Yes, as I wrote it's a concern, but its a handful out of many thousands. And not as if the agency is not necessary. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
BruceVC Posted January 27 Author Posted January 27 39 minutes ago, Malcador said: Yes, as I wrote it's a concern, but its a handful out of many thousands. And not as if the agency is not necessary. Yes and the agency is not going to be shutdown because of this, they suspending people and doing an investigation. But its work must continue but the UN needs to ensure it has the right focus "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
Recommended Posts