157

Middle East crisis live: ICJ ruling on case alleging genocide by Israel in Gaza and call for it to stop military action (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 9 months ago by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] TheBananaKing@lemmy.world 57 points 9 months ago

They didn't really call for it to stop military action though. They called for it to stop doing things intended to be genocide; I predict that Israel will just disagree that it intends genocide, and keep on doing it.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 26 points 9 months ago

Ruling that the Palestinians are a protected class under the Genocide conventions is pretty big though...

From the live thread:

"7m ago 07.43 EST International Court of Justice orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza 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.

Israel must also take immediate measures to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza."

and:

"14m ago 07.37 EST ICJ recognises right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide Judge Donoghue, speaking now at the ICJ, said at least some rights sought by South Africa in its genocide case against Israel’s war in Gaza are plausible. She said: “A link exists between the rights claimed by South Africa that the court has found plausible and at least some of the provisional measures requested.”

With the reading still ongoing, the court said it recognises the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide. Palestinians appear to be a protected group under the genocide convention, the court said.

Friday’s ruling at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) does not deal with the core accusation of the case – whether genocide occurred – but will focus on the urgent intervention sought by South Africa."

Also, statements by Israel are pretty fucking damning IMO:

"20m ago 07.33 EST Judge Donoghue is detailing comments made by Israeli officials during the war, including:

Defence minister Yoav Gallant saying he had ordered “complete siege” of Gaza City”, and later said “we will eliminate everything” and that Israel was fighting “human animals”.

President Isaac Herzog saying, “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”."

[-] fastandcurious@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

So is saying that we shouldn’t kill innocent humans ‘A big deal’

Was the world up till now thinking that Palestinians are not humans?

Are only Jews protected under the genocide convention?

What the fuck is going on?

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago

So is saying that we shouldn’t kill innocent humans ‘A big deal’

I know you're being sarcastic, but yeah. The situation is so dire that having someone at least come out and say "This is wrong" is a net improvement.

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Israel argued that because Jews were affected by a genocide, Israel is therefore unable to commit it themselves.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

The tl;dr is:

Palestinians are protected under the genocide conventions.
Israel needs to take steps to ensure genocide is not being committed.
Israel needs to improve humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Come back in a month.

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago

"You're committing genocide."

"Okay, but did I intend to? :trollface:"

[-] JustUseMint@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

"stop committing hate crimes"

"Is it a hate crime if Im enjoying it?"

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

Genocide is literally a claim of intent.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

So accidental genocide is okay? If you do a war and a genocide happens just...all well shit happens?

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

One cannot commit accidental genocide, genocide requires intent to destroy a protected group to be classified as such. See the legal definitions elsewhere in this thread. Different war crimes might apply to accidental action, but not genocide.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

All genocides are war crimes, but not all war crimes are genocides. ;)

[-] Oliofizodos@feddit.de 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Expected and disappointing statement. This just backs the non-statement of saying Israel should “do what it can” to protect civilians. The simplest way to protect civilians is to order an immediate ceasefire. This will help Biden to continue supporting the genocidal campaign that Israel is conducting on the Palestinians, because nothing he says opposes the ICJ.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

I'd add, I'm not happy with the "yeah, come back in a month" phrasing. Israel could see that as "Oh, so as long as we finish this in a month...?"

[-] Oliofizodos@feddit.de 7 points 9 months ago

Yeah absolutely, since their wording is so vague there’s not really a bar that they would need to meet.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And at least one Israeli official's response is patently offensive:

"12m ago 08.10 EST

Israel’s security minister responds to ICJ ruling by tweeting 'Hague Shmague'

Itamar Ben-Gvir has responded to the ICJ ruling by tweeting: “Hague Shmague”.

The South African government said it welcomed the provisional measures the ICJ had ordered against Israel."

load more comments (18 replies)

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

The International Court of Justice rejects Israel's bid to throw out the genocide case, calls for Israel to take steps to protect Palestinians in Gaza.

The ICJ also ordered Hamas to release the hostages being held in Gaza. There was no call by the court for Israel to end the war. The case will continue.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago

I mean, the ICJ is organized and maintained by the UN, so it makes sense that a “strong response” from them effectively amounts to hand-wringing.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Netanyahu told the ICJ to suck his balls and they got down on their knees.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 months ago

Pretty much.

sigh

[-] Bleach7297@lemmy.ca 4 points 9 months ago

Well it certainly isn't what Israel wanted, which was for the ICJ to throw out the case and say "what, the Jews are doing genocide? Don't be silly!"

But they didn't say that which of course means they have an antisemetic bias.

Because of all these brain damaged fuckwits tying their cultural identity to a corrupt government.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Waiting for the inevitable "ICJ is the judicial arm of Hamas!" claims.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Just watched. Thanks for the post.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024

157 points (95.9% liked)

World News

39013 readers

886 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.