Kaos
Full Member
So the verdict is a bit of a nothingburger then? Just essentially ordering Israel to do what it can to prevent a genocide?
Most people wouldn't argue that they do have a right to defend themselves, problem is the way that they are doing it. So ordering a cease-fire is a big leap.Yep, they agreed with basically everything South Africa submitted but rejected to propose a call for a ceasefire.
Too much politics is still being played while thousands are killed, injured, and starved every day.
My understanding of this process is that we've just had the preliminary hearing to see if there's a case to answer. That's now concluded by confirming that RSA have brought a plausible case that Israel has potentially committed genocide.So the verdict is a bit of a nothingburger then? Just essentially ordering Israel to do what it can to prevent a genocide?
Who are most people? Most people have argued for a ceasefire for weeks.Most people wouldn't argue that they do have a right to defend themselves, problem is the way that they are doing it. So ordering a cease-fire is a big leap.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
On the contrary, the verdict is quite serious. The court recognizes that the potential for genocide is there which is huge. They also call for measured and controlled reactions by the Israeli forces meaning the way they are fighting now is not acceptable according to the court, they also demand that provisions and aid are not stopped by Israel. But what surprised me the most is that it calls for the prosecution of leaders within Israel that call for genocide (Some high ranking officials have done this). I don't think Israel will abide by any of this but they are officially under scrutiny now which was the best we could hope for. It is also good that the court called for the release of the remaining hostages and I hope Hamas do this to show compliance.So the verdict is a bit of a nothingburger then? Just essentially ordering Israel to do what it can to prevent a genocide?
My knee jerk reaction is that in stopping short of calling for a ceasefire the court, in effect, ruled that in the near term Israel's right to defend itself trumps the Gazan's right to be protected from potential genocide.Most people wouldn't argue that they do have a right to defend themselves, problem is the way that they are doing it. So ordering a cease-fire is a big leap.
Any reason the Ugandan judge voted as hawkishly as she did? I mean not even the Israeli judge voted against opening up all humanitarian aid and ending genocidal speech.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isr...r-tweets-more-discussion.438643/post-31576620My knee jerk reaction is that in stopping short of calling for a ceasefire the court, in effect, ruled that in the near term Israel's right to defend itself trumps the Gazan's right to be protected from potential genocide.
The rest of the ruling pays lip service to the idea that Gazans have rights by demanding that Israel do XYZ. The thing is that Israel already claims to be doing XYZ, so precisely what change is this interim ruling effecting?
Edit: By far the most important part of the ruling is demonstrating that Israel has a case to answer, so that's good.
Yeah I read that. Don't think it cuts the mustard. Israel was already under scrutiny. My fear is that instead of preventing a genocide we'll end up recognising that one occurred.
Yeah just read the voting and even the Israel judge apparently voted "in favor" of some of the measures - i.e. the Ugandan judge voted against ALL. I don't much, if anything about the Ugandan judge. Is there anything that anyone knows i.t.o why she could be voting that way?Yeah, except for the ad-hoc Israeli judge (no surprises there), and the Ugandan judge. Seemed like it was either 15-2 or 16-1.
I completely understand the want for the atrocities to end. See it like this, Israel has been officially warned, what they do from now will be seen a completely different way, especially by other governments. Because until now it was just public opinion standing in their way.Yeah I read that. Don't think it cuts the mustard. Israel was already under scrutiny. My fear is that instead of preventing a genocide we'll end up recognising that one occurred.
Maybe I need to reflect more though.
Wicked witchTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
There's also a possibility she has been bought or she harbors a deep hatred for Arabs and Muslims.
What are these other governments going to do when big brother US is with them giving them everything they need to keep the genocide going?I completely understand the want for the atrocities to end. See it like this, Israel has been officially warned, what they do from now will be seen a completely different way, especially by other governments. Because until now it was just public opinion standing in their way.
Even if the ICJ called for a cease-fire it wouldn't have changed much sadly, you are right. But considering how bad the situation is for those civilians, anything official that recognizes that Israel isn't acting lawfully is a step in the right direction, albeit small.What are these other governments going to do when big brother US is with them giving them everything they need to keep the genocide going?
ICJ rulings carry a bit of weight. Thr US would have to be very careful in moving against that. Especially if it led to a resolution being tabled at the UN security Council. Vetoing a measure based on an ICJ ruling is not a good look.What are these other governments going to do when big brother US is with them giving them everything they need to keep the genocide going?
Even if the ICJ called for a cease-fire it wouldn't have changed much sadly, you are right. But considering how bad the situation is for those civilians, anything official that recognizes that Israel isn't acting lawfully is a step in the right direction, albeit small.
I suspect it will all end with "oh genocide happened, ups" instead of the "hey, let's stop this genocide now". Israel and Us will twist themselves in pretzels to never recognize it and the rest of the world will move on pointing to decisions like this to say "well, it was a complicated situation, we did the best with the info we had at the time".ICJ rulings carry a bit of weight. Thr US would have to be very careful in moving against that. Especially if it led to a resolution being tabled at the UN security Council. Vetoing a measure based on an ICJ ruling is not a good look.
it called for Russia to immediately suspend it's military operation.Just out of interest, as I don't know, was the ICJ used for Russia v Ukraine? If so what were the tone and words used?
By Order of March 16, 2022, the ICJ has already indicated among its provisional measures that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations it began on February 24, 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”.Just out of interest, as I don't know, was the ICJ used for Russia v Ukraine? If so what were the tone and words used?
International Court of Justice Preliminary Decision in Ukraine Vs Russia (2022):Just out of interest, as I don't know, was the ICJ used for Russia v Ukraine? If so what were the tone and words used?
On 26 February 2022,the Ukrainian Government lodged a case with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), regarding 'Allegations of Genocide under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation)' and requested that the Court order provisional measures, including an immediate suspension of the military operations. The Court fast-tracked the procedure and, on Wednesday 16 March 2022, announced its decision to order the following provisional measures:
Exact wording can be found here:
- 1. Russia must suspend the military operations launched in Ukraine on 24 February immediately;
- 2. Russia must ensure that any military or irregular armed units directed or supported by it, and any organisations and persons underits control take no steps to advance the military operations;
- 3. Both parties must refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve'.
https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf (pg 19)
Also, the ICC (not ICJ) have issued an arrest warrant for Putin and the woman who is the Russian commissioner for children's rights for the forcible transfer (kidnapping) of children from one country to another during a conflict - that's two war crimes under the Rome statute. Nothing will of course happen, but it did result in Putin being extremely careful on which countries he is traveling to (if at all).Just out of interest, as I don't know, was the ICJ used for Russia v Ukraine? If so what were the tone and words used?
You conveniently excluded the Red Cross...Definitely need those F35s to help turn the tide against the military juggernaut that are Hamas, journalists, UN workers and some kids with slingshots.
They might need to place an order for some Abrams tanks to deal with those pesky feckers.You conveniently excluded the Red Cross...
The easiest way to look at these organizations is they don't have the ability to do anything to larger, more powerful countries. But they are used by those same larger countries to vilify smaller ones; often as a pretext to economically sanction or militarily attack them.I need.a human rights lawyer.
What does this ICJ ruling say to Yemeni actions and their declarations before engaging? How are the potentially complicit nations continuing their actions against the Yemenis justifiable?
I’ve always enjoyed watching the civilised nations of the world lie(or politely termed- propaganda), though I personally benefit from the moral superiority it creates for me and fellow citizens. It’ll be interesting to understand how we can lie our way out of this one now.
The ICC is investing Israel also, anyone know when it will be presented?Also, the ICC (not ICJ) have issued an arrest warrant for Putin and the woman who is the Russian commissioner for children's rights for the forcible transfer (kidnapping) of children from one country to another during a conflict - that's two war crimes under the Rome statute. Nothing will of course happen, but it did result in Putin being extremely careful on which countries he is traveling to (if at all).
It’s always interesting. At least the legal arguments are out their for people to refuse being gaslit.The easiest way to look at these organizations is they don't have the ability to do anything to larger, more powerful countries. But they are used by those same larger countries to vilify smaller ones; often as a pretext to economically sanction or militarily attack them.
Anti Semitic
I mean surely they're expecting some diminishing returns with that explanation for anything and everything? Not to mentions it cheapens the very real anti-semitism thats rampant in Europe and North America.Anti Semitic
They’re not even trying anymore, I swearAnti Semitic