16/10/2024 — The Canadian government has designated Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, an international network that supports and advocates for
I guess because they aren’t bringing the terror here?
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.
Edit: It’s totally reasonable to call for more action on top of this. Stopping arms exports is just a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that are happening half a world away. But at least it’s a start, however small.
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.>
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling.
Citation needed.
They only ruled that … the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.
They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk,
Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?
They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that “we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?” I wouldn’t normally associate “Geneva violations” language with “court has jurisdiction” verbiage.
Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel’s interpretation of “wholly unfounded” and “morally repugnant” “false claims” was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel.
While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn’t done what it did last year, that doesn’t absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.
In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights… Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it’s strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).
No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919
“Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law>
Yes, that is true. But no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians. It’s impossible. International law only requires that they take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties. The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide, nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.
The one thing that people can’t seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don’t want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, “Hmm, I guess Israel wasn’t the bad guy after all.”
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law
Yes, that is true.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
no military can perpetrate a war without killing civilians
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
The fact that civilians have been killed in Gaza is not evidence of genocide,
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
nor does it establish that Israel is morally wrong in their actions.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn’t establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they’re morally in the wrong?
Logically that’s correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to “take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties.”
Israel is the one routinely targeting civilian areas in both Palestine and Lebanon. This isn’t a war, this an ethnic cleansing with war being used as the pretext.
No, they are not targeting civilian areas. They are targeting weapons caches, rocket/missile launchers, and Hamas/Hezbollah operatives that are unfortunately located in civilian areas.
Then why are so many civilians dying from their attacks? Why does Israel have a similar population density, but you don’t see anywhere near the amount of civilian casualties when they are attacked? And before you say, no it isn’t because of the Iron Dome. Plenty of the attacks have gotten through. It’s just more often military targets and not civilian ones.
Hamas deliberately puts their civilians in harm’s way. That’s why they have dug 500km of tunnels underneath cities. That’s why they operate out of hospitals and schools. They want civilians to die and the more the better.
Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens. And not just the Iron Dome either. There is a law in Israel that all new buildings and homes must be built with safe rooms and bomb shelters. They have a highly advanced early warning system so that civilians know to find shelter and exactly how much time they have to do so. Most of the rockets and missiles that have gotten through have been allowed to fall in open areas where they won’t do damage.
Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens.
You just literally pointed out the distinction. Israel is privileged enough to have these kinds of systems. Palestine is not. And why is Palestine so poor, might you ask? What has happened to them for over 70 years where they can barely even defend themselves?
I guess should have said “mostly suspended” - but wow, that’s quite a glaring loophole.
In particular, there’s no reporting requirements - so it’s not even possible to tell how much of what got moved under the loophole, so we don’t know if it was just a $60 drop in the bucket or if say the vast majority of arms exports are moving via the loophole now.
Shit like this is why the leaders in Arab communities are refusing to even meet with Trudeau. It’s become abundantly clear that a lot of progressives in our Parliament are only progressives when it’s politically convenient to be.
That might be a tad harsh - I’m sure that now progressive lawmakers have been made aware of the loophole by the news article that they are working on laws to fix it (previously they may have assumed that companies would just act in good faith in doing the right thing here, or failing that, that the US wouldn’t send arms over to a country found to have plausibly committed genocide).
Alas, that process is quite slow, so I am currently putting my hopes on the lawsuit mentioned in your article. Hopefully the courts will decide to apply the brakes until a legislative fix can be made.
I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt personally. The only political leader who has actually said anything substantitive regarding Israel’s actions was Singh. If you’re a political figure and you can’t even publicly condemn another countries war crimes and say that we won’t stand for it, then to me you’re complicit.
I guess because they aren’t bringing the terror here?
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it’s kinda pedantic if it’s called terrorism or not, because it’s genocide.
And it wouldn’t be quite accurate to say that Canada didn’t do anything about this. There was suspension of arms sales after all, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/joly-suspensions-analysis-1.7320990
Edit: It’s totally reasonable to call for more action on top of this. Stopping arms exports is just a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that are happening half a world away. But at least it’s a start, however small.
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.
Citation needed.
That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.
Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?
This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that “we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?” I wouldn’t normally associate “Geneva violations” language with “court has jurisdiction” verbiage.
Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel’s interpretation of “wholly unfounded” and “morally repugnant” “false claims” was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.
I mean, true in the sense that it sounded like there was almost a grand peace deal that would have made the Palestine Authority and Israel both happy, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/ until Hamas ruined it with their terrorist attack.
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law. E.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-military-human-shields.html
While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn’t done what it did last year, that doesn’t absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.
In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights… Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it’s strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).
No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.
On this, I think we’re in complete agreement.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 “Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.”
The one thing that people can’t seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don’t want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, “Hmm, I guess Israel wasn’t the bad guy after all.”
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn’t establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they’re morally in the wrong?
Logically that’s correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to “take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties.”
When I see the headlines from articles like https://time.com/7016741/israel-protests-netanyahu-six-hostages-deaths/ - yes, I can easily believe that.
Israel is the one routinely targeting civilian areas in both Palestine and Lebanon. This isn’t a war, this an ethnic cleansing with war being used as the pretext.
No, they are not targeting civilian areas. They are targeting weapons caches, rocket/missile launchers, and Hamas/Hezbollah operatives that are unfortunately located in civilian areas.
This isn’t even close to ethnic cleansing.
Then why are so many civilians dying from their attacks? Why does Israel have a similar population density, but you don’t see anywhere near the amount of civilian casualties when they are attacked? And before you say, no it isn’t because of the Iron Dome. Plenty of the attacks have gotten through. It’s just more often military targets and not civilian ones.
Are you serious?
Hamas deliberately puts their civilians in harm’s way. That’s why they have dug 500km of tunnels underneath cities. That’s why they operate out of hospitals and schools. They want civilians to die and the more the better.
Israel, on the other hand, has spent billions to protect its citizens. And not just the Iron Dome either. There is a law in Israel that all new buildings and homes must be built with safe rooms and bomb shelters. They have a highly advanced early warning system so that civilians know to find shelter and exactly how much time they have to do so. Most of the rockets and missiles that have gotten through have been allowed to fall in open areas where they won’t do damage.
You just literally pointed out the distinction. Israel is privileged enough to have these kinds of systems. Palestine is not. And why is Palestine so poor, might you ask? What has happened to them for over 70 years where they can barely even defend themselves?
Also, the Hamas using the hospital as a base accusation has long been debunked.
Except that’s not actually the case.
I guess should have said “mostly suspended” - but wow, that’s quite a glaring loophole.
In particular, there’s no reporting requirements - so it’s not even possible to tell how much of what got moved under the loophole, so we don’t know if it was just a $60 drop in the bucket or if say the vast majority of arms exports are moving via the loophole now.
Shit like this is why the leaders in Arab communities are refusing to even meet with Trudeau. It’s become abundantly clear that a lot of progressives in our Parliament are only progressives when it’s politically convenient to be.
That might be a tad harsh - I’m sure that now progressive lawmakers have been made aware of the loophole by the news article that they are working on laws to fix it (previously they may have assumed that companies would just act in good faith in doing the right thing here, or failing that, that the US wouldn’t send arms over to a country found to have plausibly committed genocide).
Alas, that process is quite slow, so I am currently putting my hopes on the lawsuit mentioned in your article. Hopefully the courts will decide to apply the brakes until a legislative fix can be made.
I hope I’m not being too optimistic here.
I wouldn’t give them the benefit of the doubt personally. The only political leader who has actually said anything substantitive regarding Israel’s actions was Singh. If you’re a political figure and you can’t even publicly condemn another countries war crimes and say that we won’t stand for it, then to me you’re complicit.