Live coverage thread of the International Court of Justice and the case of South Africa vs. Israel.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    Israel is not genocidal

    That is absolutely NOT the ruling of this court.

    "Judge Donoghue says the court has decided that Israel must “take all measures within its its power” to prevent all acts within the scope of the genocide convention.

    She adds that Israel must ensure “with immediate effect” that its forces do not commit any of the act in the genocide convention."

    Since Israel is the only force attacking Palestinians, the order to prevent all acts under the genocide convention “with immediate effect” means that the court IS in fact recognizing Israel is committing genocidal acts against the Palestinian people and that they, and they alone, have the obligation to stop it.

    • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      If a court ordered you to “ensure you must with immediate effect dispose of any and all illegal drugs in your possession”. This doesn’t mean you have them, only that if you do you have to get rid of them.

      The same applies here, they must make sure genocide isn’t happening, not stop their ongoing genocide.

      Palestine is really winning hearts but not so much minds in the information side of this war.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        When a court orders you to reverse an action, it’s a recognition that you are currently engaging in that action.

        So when this court ruled “that its (Israels) forces do not commit any of the act in the genocide convention.”

        They are stating that Israeli forces are, in fact, committing acts covered under the genocide convention.

        If they weren’t, there would be no need for the court order.

        Now, Israel’s defense could be that any genocidal action is the act of individual soldiers or units and is not official Israeli policy… I don’t BUY that, but it’s plausible deniability.

        In this case, now, the court is saying Israel has an obligation to stop it regardless of who ordered it.

        • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          I don’t read it the same way you do.

          I read it as in your way to school tomorrow make sure you don’t play in the road.

          During your invasion of Palestine ensure you don’t commit any of the acts outlined here

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            The problem with that reading is we already know Israel is on the wrong side of the genocide convention (bolding mine):

            https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

            "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

            a. Killing members of the group;
            b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
            c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

            d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
            e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

            Israel is already engaging in A, B, and C. So it’s not a matter of telling them to not do something they are currently not doing.