16/10/2024 — The Canadian government has designated Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, an international network that supports and advocates for
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.”
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.