|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On January 26 2024 23:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2024 23:38 Ciaus237 wrote:On January 26 2024 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
It reads to me like a big nothing burger that lets both sides feel like they won, all politics no teeth.
One side, see it’s plausible and must take all steps.
Other side, they can’t prove what we didn’t do, didn’t call for a cease fire.
This seems like a big political show, what a disappointment. Talk about avoiding any hard decisions. The ICJ stating that there are plausibly violations of the Genocide Convention being a nothing burger is a scorching hot take. Isn’t a “seemingly acceptable” a pretty weak ruling? There is so much wiggle room. General courts rule in absolutes
The court wasn't asked to rule on an absolute. That is coming and will take a long time. They were asked to rule on whether it is probable that Israel might commit genocide and preventative measures should be taken. The court ruled yes.
|
|
|
On January 27 2024 01:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2024 00:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2024 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On January 26 2024 23:38 Ciaus237 wrote:On January 26 2024 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
It reads to me like a big nothing burger that lets both sides feel like they won, all politics no teeth.
One side, see it’s plausible and must take all steps.
Other side, they can’t prove what we didn’t do, didn’t call for a cease fire.
This seems like a big political show, what a disappointment. Talk about avoiding any hard decisions. The ICJ stating that there are plausibly violations of the Genocide Convention being a nothing burger is a scorching hot take. Isn’t a “seemingly acceptable” a pretty weak ruling? There is so much wiggle room. General courts rule in absolutes The court wasn't asked to rule on an absolute. That is coming and will take a long time. They were asked to rule on whether it is probable that Israel might commit genocide and preventative measures should be taken. The court ruled yes. If they ruled it was probable they should have said that. The most common way the word plausible is used in English is "plausible deniability" which is basically where people come up with a story that is believable enough so that they can't be found guilty of what they did. It is even a weaker word than likely. It literally just means that it is possible, which of course means the opposite or a whole host of other options are also plausible. We can see if I'm wrong but I believe both side are going to take this as win with both saying this is the ruling the court had to make to appease the other side, but it means our side is right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
I know what plausible means, it doesn't mean "possible but highly unlikely". It means "a realistic scenario". In the case of plausible deniability, realistic enough for a not-guilty verdict. In the case of genocide, realistic enough that it merits counteractions must be taken.
|
|
|
On January 27 2024 01:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2024 01:31 Acrofales wrote:On January 27 2024 01:05 JimmiC wrote:On January 27 2024 00:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2024 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On January 26 2024 23:38 Ciaus237 wrote:On January 26 2024 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
It reads to me like a big nothing burger that lets both sides feel like they won, all politics no teeth.
One side, see it’s plausible and must take all steps.
Other side, they can’t prove what we didn’t do, didn’t call for a cease fire.
This seems like a big political show, what a disappointment. Talk about avoiding any hard decisions. The ICJ stating that there are plausibly violations of the Genocide Convention being a nothing burger is a scorching hot take. Isn’t a “seemingly acceptable” a pretty weak ruling? There is so much wiggle room. General courts rule in absolutes The court wasn't asked to rule on an absolute. That is coming and will take a long time. They were asked to rule on whether it is probable that Israel might commit genocide and preventative measures should be taken. The court ruled yes. If they ruled it was probable they should have said that. The most common way the word plausible is used in English is "plausible deniability" which is basically where people come up with a story that is believable enough so that they can't be found guilty of what they did. It is even a weaker word than likely. It literally just means that it is possible, which of course means the opposite or a whole host of other options are also plausible. We can see if I'm wrong but I believe both side are going to take this as win with both saying this is the ruling the court had to make to appease the other side, but it means our side is right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability I know what plausible means, it doesn't mean "possible but highly unlikely". It means "a realistic scenario". In the case of plausible deniability, realistic enough for a not-guilty verdict. In the case of genocide, realistic enough that it merits counteractions must be taken. I didn't say it meant highly unlikely, nice of you to throw in a strawman but it hurts your point and does not help it. What is the enforcement like? From what I can tell what the panel is saying Israel must do exactly what Israel is saying they are doing.
The ICJ cannot enforce. It relies on the UN for enforcement. So now it's up to the UN to do something. That was always going to be the case. Did you think the court would decree and the hand of god would reach down from the sky and make it so?
|
|
|
At least now we can put the discussion to rest as to whether or not the accusation of ethnic cleansing is even within reason at all. If it weren't, the case would've been rejected. This is very important news, as it allows people to discuss the matter honestly instead of facing nothing but dismissive criticism. Big progress for the time being.
|
|
|
On January 26 2024 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2024 22:25 Nebuchad wrote:Definite good news. Those are rare to come by, so relish them  I might be missing something but it seems to me that Israel couldn't really be taking "all measures in its power to prevent the commission of any acts of genocide" without a ceasefire, so the absence of the word doesn't seem that important. I did a bit of reading and it appears that the absence of "ceasefire" is just a question of wording. From the bbc, the ruling contains the following: "Donoghue outlines measures Israel must take. She says the country must take all measures to prevent acts that could be considered genocidal – such as killing members of a group or inflicting conditions designed to bring about the destruction of a group." --- "Israel must take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal - killing members of a group, causing bodily harm, inflicting conditions designed to bring about the destruction of a group, preventing births" --- South Africa's foreign minister Naledi Pandor is speaking to reporters outside the court. She says that without a ceasefire in Gaza, "the order doesn't actually work". "I would have wanted that the word cessation is included in the judgement but I'm satisfied with the directions that have been given," she says. Basically we got what we wanted, and what we needed.
If the answer to "can a war be conducted in a way that isn't genocidal?" is yes then that clearly leaves room for Israel to comply with the order without a ceasefire.
If a ceasfire were necessary to comply, then it evidently would have been one of the provisions, but it was intentionally left out. It's not just a matter of wording, it's the key thing they deliberated on when deciding the provisions. "We'll order a ceasefire without actually saying it" is not in the realm of possibilities.
I welcome any pressure on Israel to put the breaks on the destruction, but this isn't saying that no ceasefire = genocide, that wouldn't add up.
|
On January 27 2024 03:13 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2024 23:55 Nebuchad wrote:On January 26 2024 22:25 Nebuchad wrote:Definite good news. Those are rare to come by, so relish them I might be missing something but it seems to me that Israel couldn't really be taking "all measures in its power to prevent the commission of any acts of genocide" without a ceasefire, so the absence of the word doesn't seem that important. I did a bit of reading and it appears that the absence of "ceasefire" is just a question of wording. From the bbc, the ruling contains the following: "Donoghue outlines measures Israel must take. She says the country must take all measures to prevent acts that could be considered genocidal – such as killing members of a group or inflicting conditions designed to bring about the destruction of a group." --- "Israel must take all measures to prevent any acts that could be considered genocidal - killing members of a group, causing bodily harm, inflicting conditions designed to bring about the destruction of a group, preventing births" --- South Africa's foreign minister Naledi Pandor is speaking to reporters outside the court. She says that without a ceasefire in Gaza, "the order doesn't actually work". "I would have wanted that the word cessation is included in the judgement but I'm satisfied with the directions that have been given," she says. Basically we got what we wanted, and what we needed. If the answer to "can a war be conducted in a way that isn't genocidal?" is yes then that clearly leaves room for Israel to comply with the order without a ceasefire. If a ceasfire were necessary to comply, then it evidently would have been one of the provisions, but it was intentionally left out. It's not just a matter of wording, it's the key thing they deliberated on when deciding the provisions. "We'll order a ceasefire without actually saying it" is not in the realm of possibilities. I welcome any pressure on Israel to put the breaks on the destruction, but this isn't saying that no ceasefire = genocide, that wouldn't add up.
The rules from the provisional measures are quite strict, it includes not doing a lot of the actions that Israel has been doing until now. If Israel can continue the war effort without breaking any of these rules, it's basically an admission of guilt for what has happened until now because it shows that they had the capacity to not do any of these things. But again for some of these it seems impossible to meet the demand from the court without a ceasefire.
Which, if we loop back to Acro and I discussing this a few weeks back, we don't think is going to happen. It just makes the position of the governments who will keep supporting Israel harder and harder to justify.
|
For us to understand the severity of the accusation of genocide, I think it's important to also have an understanding of what genocide does and doesn't mean.
"What does ‘genocide’ technically mean?
The United Nations first defined genocide in 1948 in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The treaty outlines five acts that can constitute genocide if they are done “with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group”:
1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm
3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births
5. Forcibly transferring children
To qualify as genocide, the actions must be done with intent to eliminate an entire group of people. Without provable intent, a group or individual can still be guilty of “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing” but not genocide."
Note: if only one of the points is done with the intent as described, that would count as an act of genocide. Furthermore it is not required that the goal of eradication is successful, the attempt with intent alone counts.
"What is ethnic cleansing?
Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, only refers to the expulsion of a group from a certain area.
Ethnic cleansing has not been defined and is not recognized as a crime under international law, according to the U.N. And in reality, the lines between ethnic cleansing and genocide are often blurred."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/whats-the-difference-between-genocide-and-ethnic-cleansing
|
On January 27 2024 01:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2024 01:54 Acrofales wrote:On January 27 2024 01:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 27 2024 01:31 Acrofales wrote:On January 27 2024 01:05 JimmiC wrote:On January 27 2024 00:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2024 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On January 26 2024 23:38 Ciaus237 wrote:On January 26 2024 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
It reads to me like a big nothing burger that lets both sides feel like they won, all politics no teeth.
One side, see it’s plausible and must take all steps.
Other side, they can’t prove what we didn’t do, didn’t call for a cease fire.
This seems like a big political show, what a disappointment. Talk about avoiding any hard decisions. The ICJ stating that there are plausibly violations of the Genocide Convention being a nothing burger is a scorching hot take. Isn’t a “seemingly acceptable” a pretty weak ruling? There is so much wiggle room. General courts rule in absolutes The court wasn't asked to rule on an absolute. That is coming and will take a long time. They were asked to rule on whether it is probable that Israel might commit genocide and preventative measures should be taken. The court ruled yes. If they ruled it was probable they should have said that. The most common way the word plausible is used in English is "plausible deniability" which is basically where people come up with a story that is believable enough so that they can't be found guilty of what they did. It is even a weaker word than likely. It literally just means that it is possible, which of course means the opposite or a whole host of other options are also plausible. We can see if I'm wrong but I believe both side are going to take this as win with both saying this is the ruling the court had to make to appease the other side, but it means our side is right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability I know what plausible means, it doesn't mean "possible but highly unlikely". It means "a realistic scenario". In the case of plausible deniability, realistic enough for a not-guilty verdict. In the case of genocide, realistic enough that it merits counteractions must be taken. I didn't say it meant highly unlikely, nice of you to throw in a strawman but it hurts your point and does not help it. What is the enforcement like? From what I can tell what the panel is saying Israel must do exactly what Israel is saying they are doing. The ICJ cannot enforce. It relies on the UN for enforcement. So now it's up to the UN to do something. That was always going to be the case. Did you think the court would decree and the hand of god would reach down from the sky and make it so? Nope, I thought they would rule on if they did it on not. But that is years off. You are celebrating that the case didn't get thrown out. Here is what the UN is going to do, kick it to the security council, US veto's whatever. Don't get mad at me for pointing out reality.
As Neb said, we reached that conclusion pages ago. The question isn't really whether the US will VETO it or not, but the political power it loses by doing so. It gets increasingly uncomfortable for the US as the vote is no longer about a ceasefire, but rather about reasonable measures to ensure Israel complies with the ICJ's order, a court that the US ratified.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 27 2024 04:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2024 01:58 JimmiC wrote:On January 27 2024 01:54 Acrofales wrote:On January 27 2024 01:48 JimmiC wrote:On January 27 2024 01:31 Acrofales wrote:On January 27 2024 01:05 JimmiC wrote:On January 27 2024 00:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2024 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On January 26 2024 23:38 Ciaus237 wrote:On January 26 2024 22:32 JimmiC wrote:
It reads to me like a big nothing burger that lets both sides feel like they won, all politics no teeth.
One side, see it’s plausible and must take all steps.
Other side, they can’t prove what we didn’t do, didn’t call for a cease fire.
This seems like a big political show, what a disappointment. Talk about avoiding any hard decisions. The ICJ stating that there are plausibly violations of the Genocide Convention being a nothing burger is a scorching hot take. Isn’t a “seemingly acceptable” a pretty weak ruling? There is so much wiggle room. General courts rule in absolutes The court wasn't asked to rule on an absolute. That is coming and will take a long time. They were asked to rule on whether it is probable that Israel might commit genocide and preventative measures should be taken. The court ruled yes. If they ruled it was probable they should have said that. The most common way the word plausible is used in English is "plausible deniability" which is basically where people come up with a story that is believable enough so that they can't be found guilty of what they did. It is even a weaker word than likely. It literally just means that it is possible, which of course means the opposite or a whole host of other options are also plausible. We can see if I'm wrong but I believe both side are going to take this as win with both saying this is the ruling the court had to make to appease the other side, but it means our side is right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability I know what plausible means, it doesn't mean "possible but highly unlikely". It means "a realistic scenario". In the case of plausible deniability, realistic enough for a not-guilty verdict. In the case of genocide, realistic enough that it merits counteractions must be taken. I didn't say it meant highly unlikely, nice of you to throw in a strawman but it hurts your point and does not help it. What is the enforcement like? From what I can tell what the panel is saying Israel must do exactly what Israel is saying they are doing. The ICJ cannot enforce. It relies on the UN for enforcement. So now it's up to the UN to do something. That was always going to be the case. Did you think the court would decree and the hand of god would reach down from the sky and make it so? Nope, I thought they would rule on if they did it on not. But that is years off. You are celebrating that the case didn't get thrown out. Here is what the UN is going to do, kick it to the security council, US veto's whatever. Don't get mad at me for pointing out reality. As Neb said, we reached that conclusion pages ago. The question isn't really whether the US will VETO it or not, but the political power it loses by doing so. It gets increasingly uncomfortable for the US as the vote is no longer about a ceasefire, but rather about reasonable measures to ensure Israel complies with the ICJ's order, a court that the US ratified.
I don't expect the "loss of political power" to amount to much of anything since it is not righteousness that keeps the US as a global hegemon.
Maybe it could at least lead to the world finally telling the US to shove their petulantly cruel and inhumane embargo against Cuba where the sun don't shine. But I doubt even that, which is even more of a "the entire world vs the US and Israel" situation, is very realistic.
The primary leverage against the US's continued aiding and abetting of Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign is "not voting for the guy doing it". But a glance in the US politics thread will assure you that not voting for the guy aiding and abetting an ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians makes you an idiot/bad person/etc (which is as heinous as it sounds).
Bottom line is that Europe isn't going to stand up to the US (to stop an ethnic cleansing campaign or even just the embargo on Cuba) and will in all likelihood continue to stand with them if/when the rest of the world does stand up to them for their unrepentant crimes against humanity.
|
|
|
On January 27 2024 22:47 JimmiC wrote:It’s now up to twelve UN workers fired for supporting the Oct 7th attack with more under investigation, no word on what role they played. It does make me look back at the past headlines of UN workers dying and wondering if they were also participants or just bystanders. It seems like this conflict somehow keeps getting more messy. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/canada-suspends-cash-un-agency-231330981.html
Firing them seems somewhat underwhelming as a reaction from the UNRWA.
They should obviously be arrested and investigated officially.
|
Well if the PLO is now calling for funding to be restored... I think the biggest fear is for Arab nations face the reality of the UNRWA collapsing and being taken over by the UNHCR... Nearly none of the refugees under current UNRWA would qualify and would make it like the UN had been prolonging the conflict. Not to mention the grift going on.
Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Secretary-General Hussein al-Sheikh called for countries that announced they would withdraw funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to reverse their decision, in a post on X on Saturday.
Al-Sheikh called for the reversal citing great political and humanitarian risks should funds be withdrawn from the agency, which operates as the exclusive UN agency responsible for Palestinian refugees.
"In light of the continuing aggression against the Palestinian people, we need the maximum support for this international organization and not stopping support and assistance to it," he wrote in his post.
UNRWA workers were recently fired from their positions for participating in the October 7 Massacre, leading to several countries deciding to withdraw funding for UNRWA.
Both the United States and Italy decided to withdraw funds for UNRWA following the revelations.
Source
edit: For clarity:
the main difference and the one that would have the greatest impact upon UNRWA’s operations is that the UNHCR does not consider someone a refugee who has acquired citizenship in another country. In other words, if you have been a refugee but then you become a citizen, you can no longer be a refugee. If you can’t be a refugee under those definitions, then a very large number of UNRWA Palestinian refugees would not be refugees at all. For instance, in Jordan approximately 90% of the people UNRWA considers Palestine refugees are citizens of Jordan, and they would not be refugees under the UNHCR, or the UN Convention terms.
https://unwatch.org/former-unrwa-official-james-lindsay-speaks-on-the-agencys-future/
|
|
|
On the ground, it has been known that UNRWA is basically just an internationally funded branch of Hamas for a while. Besides for all the antisemitism that is explicit in the school books they teach from, they've been finding weapons at UNRWA schools and homes of employees. They've found bags labeled as UNRWA flour that have military equipment in them. One UNRWA employee held one of the hostages at his home. Plus of course the UNRWA employees involved with Oct 7 itself.
The fact that they are only taking any action against these employees now that their funding is being threatened is pretty telling in an of itself.
I hope anyone here who is "only concerned about the side you finance" is concerned about your tax dollars being used to enable Oct 7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
