|
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. |
Re Genocide Case: For anyone who has been following this thread the whole way through, we already explained pretty clearly how Israel is not now nor has ever committed genocide a couple months ago. Not to say that Palestinians aren't suffering or dying, but addressing that term specifically. I'll re-quote my post below for those new to the thread. Those facts remain true regardless what any court says on the matter. There is no ruling in the world that could magically retroactively genocide millions of Palestinians. Which is why the adults in the room were suggesting that the case be thrown out altogether for the political stunt that it is.
From where I'm standing, it seems that the two biggest ramifications of an ICJ ruling on the topic would be:
1. Help establish whether the court is an objective worthy body in the first place. The ICJ has been fighting an uphill battle for legitimacy for a long time. Here is a study on the consistent bias of their judges from 2003. Abstract. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over disputes between nations, and has decided dozens of cases since it began operations in 1946. Its academic defenders argue that the ICJ decides cases impartially and confers legitimacy on the international legal system. Its critics – mostly outside the academy – argue that the members of the ICJ vote the interests of the states that appoint them. Prior empirical scholarship is ambiguous. We test the charge of political bias using statistical methods. We find strong evidence that (1) judges favor the state that appoints them; (2) judges favor states whose wealth level is close to that of the judges’ own state; and (3) judges favor states whose political system is similar to that of the judges’ own state. We find weak evidence that judges are influenced by regional and military alignments.
Meanwhile, of the four rulings I know of that they made about countries in the past couple of years, all of them have been entirely ignored.
2. A potential diluting of the term "genocide" to apply to just about every armed conflict. This has already been happening in the media, but this might dilute the term in a legal way. Which would be pretty unfortunate considering that the drafters of the Genocide Convention themselves clarified that they wanted to avoid that understanding:
[t]he infliction of losses, even heavy losses, on the civilian population in the course of operations of war, does not as a rule constitute genocide. In modern war belligerents normally destroy factories, means of communication, public buildings, etc. and the civilian population inevitably suffers more or less severe losses. It would of course be desirable to limit such losses. Various measures might be taken to achieve this end, but this question belongs to the field of the regulation of the conditions of war and not to that of genocide.
Anyways, here is my old post examining if the term "genocide" is relevant to this conflict.
On October 17 2023 03:38 Cerebrate1 wrote:I just want to sidebar a few important points before I respond to some of the posts here. Genocide as defined by Wordnik: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
I say growth, because it has indeed grown. Quite a lot. Quite consistently. There are really 2 possible explanations. Israel is hopelessly incompetent at committing genocide. OR they aren't trying to commit genocide and never have been. As to the current conflict, Israel makes automated phone calls to residents of buildings before it bombs them so they can evacuate. Then they drop low yield roof knockers a few minutes before so residents have a last chance to flee if they ignored the phone calls. Then they destroy a building that is hopefully empty of inhabitants but usually full of Hamas rockets. The results speak for themselves as well. As of early yesterday, Israel hit over 3,600 targets. Hamas published Palestinian death toll was only around 1,500. That's less than one death per target. Those are some incredibly empty buildings to destroy if your goal is genocide. Keep in mind that these are precision missiles, so they are hitting what they want when they want it. If they just wanted to kill people, they could have gotten those kills with about a dozen missiles instead of 3,600.
|
I don't think there's much need for further discussions in this thread, is there?
|
|
|
|
|
On January 29 2024 01:42 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2024 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's much need for further discussions in this thread, is there? Then don't discuss it.
I don't think I will. I wanted to encourage other people to not do it either.
We've seen from the thread that there isn't a good faith debate about the facts, they're quite clear. So now I don't see a ton of value in talking about the importance of reality in politics over and over.
A country is plausibly doing genocide and you probably live in a country that funds it and is complicit. It's time to actually be political. Seven countries are even willing to cut support for the group that is plausibly genocided because the group that is plausibly genociding them said that 0.0000001% of the support group might be evil. That is revolting. Call people about it, be annoying, take part in civil unrest. Do things that you would like to remember yourself having done.
|
|
|
Okay Jimmy, have a nice morning
|
United States41117 Posts
The IDF is moving deeper into Khan Yunis.
As fighting raged, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres pleaded for continued support for UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, threatened by a fierce row over alleged staff involvement in Hamas's October 7 attack.
Several of the agency's top donors including the United States and Germany have halted funding to UNRWA, which has been at the heart of humanitarian efforts in Gaza, over the Israeli claims.
Guterres called on donor states to guarantee the flow of vital aid to the besieged Gaza Strip, saying late Saturday that "the dire needs of the desperate populations they serve must be met."
The Israeli army reported "intensive battles" in Gaza's main southern city of Khan Yunis, where it said special forces eliminated "terrorists" and seized weapons.
The health ministry in the Hamas-ruled territory said at least 24 people were killed Sunday in Israeli strikes on Khan Yunis, where the sound of gunfire reverberated throughout the day.
Strikes were also carried out in central and northern Gaza, the army added.
Meanwhile, Burns was in Paris on Sunday for talks with top Egyptian, Israeli and Qatari officials, sources close to the participants said, after media reports suggested some progress in negotiations towards a halt to hostilities.
More than three months of war have led to a spiralling humanitarian crisis and mass displacement within the Palestinian territory, with many Gazans driven south towards the Egyptian border.
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, warned that suspending UNRWA funding "overtly defies" an order issued Friday by the International Court of Justice to allow more aid into Gaza.
The UN's top court also said Israel must prevent genocidal acts in its war with Hamas, but stopped short of calling for an end to the fighting.
'There will be famine'
UNRWA on Friday said it had it had fired several employees over Israel's accusations that some of its staff were involved in the October 7 attack that sparked the war.
The attack on Israel resulted in about 1,140 deaths, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally of official figures.
Militants also seized around 250 hostages, of whom Israel says around 132 remain in Gaza, including the bodies of at least 28 dead captives.
Israel's ensuing military offensive has killed at least 26,422 people in Gaza, most of them women and children, according to the Gaza health ministry.
Bassam al-Masry, displaced from north Gaza to Rafah in the far south, said if aid was cut off it would be "a major disaster" and "there will be famine."
The agency "are the ones giving us flour, food and drinks," he said.
Guterres said the "abhorrent alleged acts" of some UNRWA staff should not mean that its thousands of other humanitarian workers should be penalised.
"I strongly appeal to the governments that have suspended their contributions to, at least, guarantee the continuity of UNRWA's operations," Guterres said.
The agency's chief, Philippe Lazzarini, warned in a social media post that funding cuts meant its operation in Gaza was close to collapse.
A statement from Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas's office said the threat to UNRWA's operations could "disproportionately punish millions of our people without just cause".
Israel's envoy to the UN, Gilad Erdan, charged that funding for the agency "will be used for terrorism" and urged donors to await "a comprehensive investigation of the organisation".
Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz called on Lazzarini to quit after saying earlier the body, whose ties with Israel have been strained for years, "must be replaced with agencies dedicated to genuine peace and development".
Aid crossing protest
With combat ongoing, diplomatic efforts to find a solution have gathered pace.
Quoting unidentified US officials, it said negotiators had developed a draft agreement that would be discussed in Paris on Sunday.
The Kerem Shalom crossing in southern Israel, where aid is inspected and sent into Gaza, was blocked on Sunday by protesters including the families of hostages, Israeli officials said.
AFPTV footage showed multiple aid trucks turning back and leaving the crossing point to return to Egypt. Trucks were also blocked on Thursday and Friday.
Many of them live in "conditions of desperation conducive to a complete breakdown in order", said Ajith Sunghay of the UN Human Rights Office.
Source
|
|
|
Well the Houthis said there would be reprisals after they were attacked for attacking shipping lanes.
Don't think the US is likely to back off tho, probably more strikes against their positions incoming.
|
On January 29 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2024 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2024 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's much need for further discussions in this thread, is there? Then don't discuss it. We've seen from the thread that there isn't a good faith debate about the facts, they're quite clear. So now I don't see a ton of value in talking about the importance of reality in politics over and over.
You are suggesting that the case is closed based on a court ruling that stated that the case is not closed?
To quote part of a statement that just came from the court on this issue:
The conclusions reached by the Court in this preliminary stage do not prejudge in any way the claims brought by South Africa, which remain wholly unproven (see Order, paras. 30 and 62)
A country is plausibly doing genocide and you probably live in a country that funds it and is complicit.
I'm not really sure why people keep saying this. As far as I know (feel free to correct me if you have evidence otherwise), no country outside of the US sends any government funds to Israel. There are a lot of countries that send money to Palestine (much of which gets siphoned off to their corrupt leaders and/or their war efforts) but when has Switzerland ever sent aid of any kind to Israel?
Seven countries are even willing to cut support for the group that is plausibly genocided because the group that is plausibly genociding them said that 0.0000001% of the support group might be evil. That is revolting.
The allegations about the UNRWA employees have been out for some time. Those countries only pulled funding when Israel showed them their evidence behind those allegations. It must be pretty damning because Findland isn't exactly Israel's best friend. They've been trying to kick Israel out of Eurovision.
As an activist and anarchist, I thought you especially would be in favor of defunding such an organization. Do you really want your tax dollars supporting a "humanitarian" organization that knowingly employs people who rape and dismember civilians in their spare time?
|
On January 29 2024 00:54 Cerebrate1 wrote:Re Genocide Case: For anyone who has been following this thread the whole way through, we already explained pretty clearly how Israel is not now nor has ever committed genocide a couple months ago. Not to say that Palestinians aren't suffering or dying, but addressing that term specifically. I'll re-quote my post below for those new to the thread. Those facts remain true regardless what any court says on the matter. There is no ruling in the world that could magically retroactively genocide millions of Palestinians. Which is why the adults in the room were suggesting that the case be thrown out altogether for the political stunt that it is. From where I'm standing, it seems that the two biggest ramifications of an ICJ ruling on the topic would be: 1. Help establish whether the court is an objective worthy body in the first place. The ICJ has been fighting an uphill battle for legitimacy for a long time. Here is a study on the consistent bias of their judges from 2003. Show nested quote +Abstract. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over disputes between nations, and has decided dozens of cases since it began operations in 1946. Its academic defenders argue that the ICJ decides cases impartially and confers legitimacy on the international legal system. Its critics – mostly outside the academy – argue that the members of the ICJ vote the interests of the states that appoint them. Prior empirical scholarship is ambiguous. We test the charge of political bias using statistical methods. We find strong evidence that (1) judges favor the state that appoints them; (2) judges favor states whose wealth level is close to that of the judges’ own state; and (3) judges favor states whose political system is similar to that of the judges’ own state. We find weak evidence that judges are influenced by regional and military alignments. Meanwhile, of the four rulings I know of that they made about countries in the past couple of years, all of them have been entirely ignored. 2. A potential diluting of the term "genocide" to apply to just about every armed conflict. This has already been happening in the media, but this might dilute the term in a legal way. Which would be pretty unfortunate considering that the drafters of the Genocide Convention themselves clarified that they wanted to avoid that understanding: Show nested quote +[t]he infliction of losses, even heavy losses, on the civilian population in the course of operations of war, does not as a rule constitute genocide. In modern war belligerents normally destroy factories, means of communication, public buildings, etc. and the civilian population inevitably suffers more or less severe losses. It would of course be desirable to limit such losses. Various measures might be taken to achieve this end, but this question belongs to the field of the regulation of the conditions of war and not to that of genocide. Anyways, here is my old post examining if the term "genocide" is relevant to this conflict. Show nested quote +On October 17 2023 03:38 Cerebrate1 wrote:I just want to sidebar a few important points before I respond to some of the posts here. Genocide as defined by Wordnik: The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Here is the population of world Jewery over the century. https://www.seder-olam.info/seder-olam-jewish-population-XXc.JPGSee that massive down spike in population? That is an attempted genocide by the Nazis. Here is the population growth of the Palestinian people since the State of Israel was formed. https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4QXgZt5_L9M/XB_cN-U9ALI/AAAAAAAADOw/4HmXpixDbV8UK4bEO-GJTiDk-xlGwbwRwCLcBGAs/s1600/Palestine2.png
I say growth, because it has indeed grown. Quite a lot. Quite consistently. There are really 2 possible explanations. Israel is hopelessly incompetent at committing genocide. OR they aren't trying to commit genocide and never have been. As to the current conflict, Israel makes automated phone calls to residents of buildings before it bombs them so they can evacuate. Then they drop low yield roof knockers a few minutes before so residents have a last chance to flee if they ignored the phone calls. Then they destroy a building that is hopefully empty of inhabitants but usually full of Hamas rockets. The results speak for themselves as well. As of early yesterday, Israel hit over 3,600 targets. Hamas published Palestinian death toll was only around 1,500. That's less than one death per target. Those are some incredibly empty buildings to destroy if your goal is genocide. Keep in mind that these are precision missiles, so they are hitting what they want when they want it. If they just wanted to kill people, they could have gotten those kills with about a dozen missiles instead of 3,600.
I don't think the potential for 2 is very big. In the order they emphasize that it's not a judgement on the merits. As do all the judges, except the Chinese judge, in the seperate opinions. The plausibility standard is a relatively low bar to meet. When the case is judged on the merits genocidal intent has to be the only reasonable inference from the available evidence. That's an extremely high bar. Even in former Yugoslavia only Srebrenica was classified as genocide. From almost all expert opinions I've read the case will almost certainly fail.
It's why this case is a mistake. Israel will win the case in the end and the far right will use it as vindication for their racism and hatred towards Palestinians regardless of any other potential war crimes or crimes against humanity.
|
|
|
On January 29 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2024 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2024 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's much need for further discussions in this thread, is there? Then don't discuss it. I don't think I will. I wanted to encourage other people to not do it either. We've seen from the thread that there isn't a good faith debate about the facts, they're quite clear. So now I don't see a ton of value in talking about the importance of reality in politics over and over. A country is plausibly doing genocide and you probably live in a country that funds it and is complicit. It's time to actually be political. Seven countries are even willing to cut support for the group that is plausibly genocided because the group that is plausibly genociding them said that 0.0000001% of the support group might be evil. That is revolting. Call people about it, be annoying, take part in civil unrest. Do things that you would like to remember yourself having done.
On one hand people have been supporting Palestinians in unprecedented numbers, on the other, people are attempting to rationalize an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign and voting for a guy aiding and abetting it. It's both uplifting and quite disappointing.
I get the impression Israel/Netanyahu is like Trump in that they are taking the mask off of US foreign policy (supporting an ethnic cleansing campaign)/Israeli anti-Palestinian policy (engaging in an ethnic cleansing campaign) and trading the dog whistles for bullhorns. A lot of the opposition from politicians is on style rather than substance and Israel is essentially doing what is expected of them (with the aforementioned issues on style) as a proxy to expand US hegemony in the Middle East.
|
On January 29 2024 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:On January 29 2024 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2024 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's much need for further discussions in this thread, is there? Then don't discuss it. I don't think I will. I wanted to encourage other people to not do it either. We've seen from the thread that there isn't a good faith debate about the facts, they're quite clear. So now I don't see a ton of value in talking about the importance of reality in politics over and over. A country is plausibly doing genocide and you probably live in a country that funds it and is complicit. It's time to actually be political. Seven countries are even willing to cut support for the group that is plausibly genocided because the group that is plausibly genociding them said that 0.0000001% of the support group might be evil. That is revolting. Call people about it, be annoying, take part in civil unrest. Do things that you would like to remember yourself having done. On one hand people have been supporting Palestinians in unprecedented numbers, on the other, people are attempting to rationalize an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign and voting for a guy aiding and abetting it. It's both uplifting and quite disappointing. I get the impression Israel/Netanyahu is like Trump in that they are taking the mask off of US foreign policy (supporting an ethnic cleansing campaign)/Israeli anti-Palestinian policy (engaging in an ethnic cleansing campaign) and trading the dog whistles for bullhorns. A lot of the opposition from politicians is on style rather than substance and Israel is essentially doing what is expected of them (with the aforementioned issues on style) as a proxy to expand US hegemony in the Middle East.
I certainly wouldn't vote for Biden after this, but it doesn't really matter to me whether people do or not, it's not like this election matters. It's basically a non-event and any time spent talking about it is wasted as far as I'm concerned, I'd much rather focus on something political.
|
On January 29 2024 06:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2024 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:On January 29 2024 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2024 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's much need for further discussions in this thread, is there? Then don't discuss it. I don't think I will. I wanted to encourage other people to not do it either. We've seen from the thread that there isn't a good faith debate about the facts, they're quite clear. So now I don't see a ton of value in talking about the importance of reality in politics over and over. A country is plausibly doing genocide and you probably live in a country that funds it and is complicit. It's time to actually be political. Seven countries are even willing to cut support for the group that is plausibly genocided because the group that is plausibly genociding them said that 0.0000001% of the support group might be evil. That is revolting. Call people about it, be annoying, take part in civil unrest. Do things that you would like to remember yourself having done. On one hand people have been supporting Palestinians in unprecedented numbers, on the other, people are attempting to rationalize an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign and voting for a guy aiding and abetting it. It's both uplifting and quite disappointing. I get the impression Israel/Netanyahu is like Trump in that they are taking the mask off of US foreign policy (supporting an ethnic cleansing campaign)/Israeli anti-Palestinian policy (engaging in an ethnic cleansing campaign) and trading the dog whistles for bullhorns. A lot of the opposition from politicians is on style rather than substance and Israel is essentially doing what is expected of them (with the aforementioned issues on style) as a proxy to expand US hegemony in the Middle East. I certainly wouldn't vote for Biden after this, but it doesn't really matter to me whether people do or not, it's not like this election matters. It's basically a non-event and any time spent talking about it is wasted as far as I'm concerned, I'd much rather focus on something political.
I think part of the problem is that the extent of "something political" for most people is just voting/electoralism. Those that ostensibly oppose Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign (to say nothing of those that don't even do this) can't even muster to not vote for the top guy aiding and abetting it. Expecting them to do even more 'radical' things like mildly inconvenience people complacent in an ethnic cleansing campaign is like squeezing blood from a stone.
That said, I agree with the sentiment. For me in the US, the line from the problem to the systematically prescribed solution of voting/electoralism and it's clear futility (supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign is bipartisan in the US) is pretty obvious, so the implication that something more/"something political" must be done is equally obvious.
What that might be and how it might manifest (and has so far), I would agree, is one of the more interesting directions the discussion here could go.
|
30 000 people are employed at the UNRWA, mostly Palestinians. Before an investigation has even taken place they've fired 12 of them over the accusations of participating in the October 7 attack. An investigation is currently underway.
As a consequence, funding to the entire organization has been halted.
I can't say I'm surprised. While Israel rejects every investigation into IDF conduct and yet continues to receive international aid, the UNRWA immediately conducts an investigation and fires its employees yet has international aid withdrawn. This is despite the UNRWA being a humanitarian organization that saves peoples lives while the IDF causes tens of thousands of deaths.
Amazing priorities of the countries supporting Israel.
|
|
|
On January 29 2024 06:27 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2024 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2024 02:00 Nebuchad wrote:On January 29 2024 01:42 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2024 01:38 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's much need for further discussions in this thread, is there? Then don't discuss it. I don't think I will. I wanted to encourage other people to not do it either. We've seen from the thread that there isn't a good faith debate about the facts, they're quite clear. So now I don't see a ton of value in talking about the importance of reality in politics over and over. A country is plausibly doing genocide and you probably live in a country that funds it and is complicit. It's time to actually be political. Seven countries are even willing to cut support for the group that is plausibly genocided because the group that is plausibly genociding them said that 0.0000001% of the support group might be evil. That is revolting. Call people about it, be annoying, take part in civil unrest. Do things that you would like to remember yourself having done. On one hand people have been supporting Palestinians in unprecedented numbers, on the other, people are attempting to rationalize an ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign and voting for a guy aiding and abetting it. It's both uplifting and quite disappointing. I get the impression Israel/Netanyahu is like Trump in that they are taking the mask off of US foreign policy (supporting an ethnic cleansing campaign)/Israeli anti-Palestinian policy (engaging in an ethnic cleansing campaign) and trading the dog whistles for bullhorns. A lot of the opposition from politicians is on style rather than substance and Israel is essentially doing what is expected of them (with the aforementioned issues on style) as a proxy to expand US hegemony in the Middle East. I certainly wouldn't vote for Biden after this, but it doesn't really matter to me whether people do or not, it's not like this election matters. It's basically a non-event and any time spent talking about it is wasted as far as I'm concerned, I'd much rather focus on something political.
It's irrelevant even discussing it, as Trump is more pro-Zionist than even the Biden administration.From the articles i have seen Bidens pro-war, pro-escalation stance (The massive amounts in military funding for Ukraine & Israel plus the buildup of US forces in MidEast) is having a negative effect with the Gen Z vote, but they will probably just sit it out rather than vote Trump.
Countries reducing funding to the UN is one of the very few good things to come out of this war so far.
|
On January 29 2024 21:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2024 21:27 Magic Powers wrote:
30 000 people are employed at the UNRWA, mostly Palestinians. Before an investigation has even taken place they've fired 12 of them over the accusations of participating in the October 7 attack. An investigation is currently underway.
As a consequence, funding to the entire organization has been halted.
I can't say I'm surprised. While Israel rejects every investigation into IDF conduct and yet continues to receive international aid, the UNRWA immediately conducts an investigation and fires its employees yet has international aid withdrawn. This is despite the UNRWA being a humanitarian organization that saves peoples lives while the IDF causes tens of thousands of deaths.
Amazing priorities of the countries supporting Israel. The spin is unreal. They were accused months ago and completely denied it all saying it was Israeli propaganda, which you either did or would have instantly believed. They reacted when their supporters were presented with evidence. They fired them after the US and Canada maybe others of the many nations paused funding. Some of you really need to paint Hamas as victims and spin everything to Israel’s fault. Why is that?
I don't know why that is. Might be because I'm a Hamas supporter, a Nazi supporter, a genocide supporter, a Satan worshipper, and a baby eater.
The only thing I do know is that I'll never respond to you. You can try to stir a reaction by provoking me all you want, my policy is for life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
