gaza conflict

[Son of Mathonwy]

Just back from the big march in London. Plenty of people there despite the cold.

[paddy no 11]

Well played South Africa

Those fucking idiots in Germany have been shown up big time

Keir starmer be squirming

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is a victory but the press aren't portraying it as such. They're making out that since the court doesn't literally call for a ceasefire, it's a bit ambiguous.

The first statement is:

The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in
accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza,
take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article
II of this Convention, in particular: (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; and (d) imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of
Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a
group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with
immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.

That is an instruction for Israel to stop killing, wounding or mentally harming Palestinians in Gaza. Not reasonable measures, ALL measures. That's only possible if military action ceases. That's a ceasefire.

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/f ... -00-en.pdf

But according to the BBC:

The court did not call for a ceasefire.

Instead, judges kept the provisional measures within what’s required by states that have signed up to the genocide convention - Israel has consistently said it is acting in accordance with international law.

And yet, its is being interpreted as a victory for those who supported South Africa's case, insofar as the ICJ found it did have jurisdiction, and decided there was a plausible case under the genocide convention.

It also said that the Palestinian population in Gaza was at real risk of irreparable damage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-6 ... type=share

And even the Guardian is a bit vague about it:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... -talks-cia

[Son of Mathonwy]

Basically, the crime of genocide occurs when both the mental part (ie the intent) and the physical part (ie the killing, wounding, mentally harming, starving etc) occur.

It's a matter of fact that several of the physical elements are occuring eg even the Israelis wouldn't deny that they are killing Palestinians. The only question is whether the mental element exists.

The interim judgement is that the physical part must cease (ie ALL measures must be taken to prevent it) while the court takes its time to look at the mental aspect.

This is not the same as merely requiring that Israel complies with the Genocide Convention* (because that allows for killing etc as long as the mental element is not present (which they will always maintain is the case - in court at least)).

This is saying that Israel must stop the physical side of it right now. That's a ceasefire.

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

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


* as the BBC are claiming.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Bizarre reaction from the press. For most of them to be taking a supposedly even-handed view of it is no surprise, but even the Guardian and Channel 4 News are taking the line that the ICJ hasn't actually called for a ceasefire so Israel has wriggle room.

The ICJ ruling orders Israel to immediately stop its military from taking any action which would kill or wound Gazan Palestinians. Any further killings or woundings are breaches of international law as a matter of fact. No distinguishing between Hamas and civilians. No call for proportionate or reasonable levels of harm. No allowance for self-defense.

No killing or wounding at all.

If the US and the UK do not demand that Israel complies with this, it is no different than them ignoring a judgement of genocide against Israel (which may well come, down the road). No different to Putin ignoring the pronouncements of the ICC or ICJ.

I'm fairly sure the UK has chosen its side, and will stick with Israel, right or wrong. But for even the left-leaning press to go along with this is bizarre. Group-think, perhaps? Fear of really breaking ranks? Stupidity?

Weird.

[Puja]

Bizarre reaction from the press. For most of them to be taking a supposedly even-handed view of it is no surprise, but even the Guardian and Channel 4 News are taking the line that the ICJ hasn't actually called for a ceasefire so Israel has wriggle room.

The ICJ ruling orders Israel to immediately stop its military from taking any action which would kill or wound Gazan Palestinians. Any further killings or woundings are breaches of international law as a matter of fact. No distinguishing between Hamas and civilians. No call for proportionate or reasonable levels of harm. No allowance for self-defense.

No killing or wounding at all.

If the US and the UK do not demand that Israel complies with this, it is no different than them ignoring a judgement of genocide against Israel (which may well come, down the road). No different to Putin ignoring the pronouncements of the ICC or ICJ.

I'm fairly sure the UK has chosen its side, and will stick with Israel, right or wrong. But for even the left-leaning press to go along with this is bizarre. Group-think, perhaps? Fear of really breaking ranks? Stupidity?

Weird.

Terror of being smeared with the anti-semitism brush, which is being brandished liberally over anyone that offers even the slightest critique of Israel?

On that note, I'm getting really fucked off with Israel responding to any and all censure with "tHiS iS BlOoD lIBeL!!!" I can't believe that the leadership actually believe what they're saying, that they genuinely believe that any and all pushback, no matter how mild, is solely fuelled by hatred of Jews and nothing to do with them killing 20,000 civilians in a territory that they're occupying, as revenge for a terrorist attack. However, if they don't believe it, then that only leaves that they are cynical about it and are choosing to cheaply leverage one of the worst crimes against humanity in the history of the Western world for shallow propaganda, while undercutting any future instances of bigotry. I think I'd prefer them to be delusional.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Bizarre reaction from the press. For most of them to be taking a supposedly even-handed view of it is no surprise, but even the Guardian and Channel 4 News are taking the line that the ICJ hasn't actually called for a ceasefire so Israel has wriggle room.

The ICJ ruling orders Israel to immediately stop its military from taking any action which would kill or wound Gazan Palestinians. Any further killings or woundings are breaches of international law as a matter of fact. No distinguishing between Hamas and civilians. No call for proportionate or reasonable levels of harm. No allowance for self-defense.

No killing or wounding at all.

If the US and the UK do not demand that Israel complies with this, it is no different than them ignoring a judgement of genocide against Israel (which may well come, down the road). No different to Putin ignoring the pronouncements of the ICC or ICJ.

I'm fairly sure the UK has chosen its side, and will stick with Israel, right or wrong. But for even the left-leaning press to go along with this is bizarre. Group-think, perhaps? Fear of really breaking ranks? Stupidity?

Weird.

Terror of being smeared with the anti-semitism brush, which is being brandished liberally over anyone that offers even the slightest critique of Israel?

On that note, I'm getting really fucked off with Israel responding to any and all censure with "tHiS iS BlOoD lIBeL!!!" I can't believe that the leadership actually believe what they're saying, that they genuinely believe that any and all pushback, no matter how mild, is solely fuelled by hatred of Jews and nothing to do with them killing 20,000 civilians in a territory that they're occupying, as revenge for a terrorist attack. However, if they don't believe it, then that only leaves that they are cynical about it and are choosing to cheaply leverage one of the worst crimes against humanity in the history of the Western world for shallow propaganda, while undercutting any future instances of bigotry. I think I'd prefer them to be delusional.

Puja

Are they delusional narcissists or cynical psychopaths? Good question.

My guess, particularly for Netanyahu, is cynicism. But in the end it's of limited value trying to get inside the heads of this zero-empathy crowd. They act like monsters and will never give an inch, never be reasonable, never play fair. They have to be opposed, no matter the precise way their brains are fucked up.

[paddy no 11]

Protest in cork today was definitely 33% bigger than any previous week

[paddy no 11]

What happens in a month when Israel returns to icj in a month and nothing has changed? Presumably icj demand a ceasefire?

[Son of Mathonwy]

What happens in a month when Israel returns to icj in a month and nothing has changed? Presumably icj demand a ceasefire?

I don't know if they will use the C word. They've very much stuck to the law and demanded everything the genocide convention requires. Hopefully they will make it clear that the Israelis need to cease firing their weapons at the Gazans and the world press will start to understand that they have basically been demanding this all along.

But I have my doubts that anything will happen other than hand-wringing by the press at the hopelessness of it all and the steady degradation of the ICJ and International Law in general.

But basically, if the West acts like nothing's changed we will have no leg to stand on when we want others to follow international law, zero moral high ground . . . in fact we're digging a moral pit. When the bad shit finally happens to us, we will receive no help, no pity.

[paddy no 11]

I absolutely agree with the last paragraph. Channel 4 couldn't get a government spokesperson to comment on the icj ruling

Next day they are straight out to defund the UNRWA

This kind of stuff will bite the west, Palestine is entitled to statehood every bit as much as Israel and that needs to be the outcome

[Puja]

Holy hells, I'm legitimately pleased by something that's come out of "Lord" Cameron's mouth: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220

That's a potentially massive shift in policy for the UK and even to be talking about considering possibly maybe doing it is a massive rebuke to Israel (relative to our current policy, anyway) and actually gives a carrot to try ending the Hamas terrorism peacefully, rather than just brandishing ever larger sticks.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Holy hells, I'm legitimately pleased by something that's come out of "Lord" Cameron's mouth: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68137220

That's a potentially massive shift in policy for the UK and even to be talking about considering possibly maybe doing it is a massive rebuke to Israel (relative to our current policy, anyway) and actually gives a carrot to try ending the Hamas terrorism peacefully, rather than just brandishing ever larger sticks.

Puja

Very surprising. I don't see it happening but better to have it said than not.

Whatever next? Suggest that Israel obeys international law?

[Son of Mathonwy]

250,000 of us marching in London today. Good say for it, dry and cool.

And now back to the rugby . . .

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sick.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... y-for-help

[paddy no 11]

Sick.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... y-for-help

Most moral army in the world don't ye know

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sick.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... y-for-help

Most moral army in the world don't ye know

Bombing ambulances and six year olds, I'm sure it's all part of their deep commitment to international law.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is Labour's position on Gaza (perhaps the government's too, since it allowed it to pass?):

That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.

I'm not sure this constitutes any real change in their position. They still only want a ceasefire if both sides observe it. Which is to say that as long as a single Hamas member continues any kind of military action, they don't want a ceasefire, ie they want the killing to continue in that event. So, since they know Hamas are unlikely to comply, or even if they did, it would be impossible to prove that they did, they are calling for no change, no end to the mass killing.

And yet, the amendment goes on to contradict itself by calling for Israel to comply with the ICJ's provisional measures, which (amongst other things) call for an immediate end to the killing by the Israeli military, with no caveats.

It's a deeply cynical attempt to claim that 'we are calling for a ceasefire' when in fact the call is so contingent on other things as to be meaningless under the circumstances. I really don't get the hold Israel (or maybe the US) has over (New) Labour which has them ignoring war crimes, crimes against humanity, international law and possibly genocide.

[paddy no 11]

This is Labour's position on Gaza (perhaps the government's too, since it allowed it to pass?):

That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.

I'm not sure this constitutes any real change in their position. They still only want a ceasefire if both sides observe it. Which is to say that as long as a single Hamas member continues any kind of military action, they don't want a ceasefire, ie they want the killing to continue in that event. So, since they know Hamas are unlikely to comply, or even if they did, it would be impossible to prove that they did, they are calling for no change, no end to the mass killing.

And yet, the amendment goes on to contradict itself by calling for Israel to comply with the ICJ's provisional measures, which (amongst other things) call for an immediate end to the killing by the Israeli military, with no caveats.

It's a deeply cynical attempt to claim that 'we are calling for a ceasefire' when in fact the call is so contingent on other things as to be meaningless under the circumstances. I really don't get the hold Israel (or maybe the US) has over (New) Labour which has them ignoring war crimes, crimes against humanity, international law and possibly genocide.

Ah Labour have definitely been labelled an anti semitic party. Your one countdown sued corbyn or something right? Starmer will be called anti semitic by the friends of Israel types if he says anything against the israeli state.

[paddy no 11]

Jeez the speaker has hung himself out to dry here

[Donny osmond]

Jeez the speaker has hung himself out to dry here

As a general rule, if you've outraged the Tories and the SNP you've done something right.

[Puja]

Jeez the speaker has hung himself out to dry here

As a general rule, if you've outraged the Tories and the SNP you've done something right.

This, I believe, would be the exception. Incredible decision by Hoyle to break the rules just so Starmer can avoid being embarrassed by a rebellion.

No-one's come out of this looking good. The SNP for the puerile stunt in the first place, Starmer for bullying Hoyle/claiming it was an issue of safety when everyone was free to vote for the SNP bill apart from him prohibiting it, the Tories for affecting moral outrage because of their deep respect for the rules and traditions of parliament, with all of it as the backdrop that they're using the deaths of tens of thousands as a playground for petty party politics.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Jeez the speaker has hung himself out to dry here

As a general rule, if you've outraged the Tories and the SNP you've done something right.

This, I believe, would be the exception. Incredible decision by Hoyle to break the rules just so Starmer can avoid being embarrassed by a rebellion.

No-one's come out of this looking good. The SNP for the puerile stunt in the first place, Starmer for bullying Hoyle/claiming it was an issue of safety when everyone was free to vote for the SNP bill apart from him prohibiting it, the Tories for affecting moral outrage because of their deep respect for the rules and traditions of parliament, with all of it as the backdrop that they're using the deaths of tens of thousands as a playground for petty party politics.

Puja

I don't want to be sidetracked from the issue of mass killings in Gaza by this parliamentary bullshit, but it shows that there should be rules, not traditions, for this.

[Puja]

Jared Kushner finding a new low: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... rael-negev

Puja

[paddy no 11]

The kush is the 2 ends of a cu*t

Hopefully macron pulls off some sort of resolution at the security counsel

Starvation is a brutal death. The physiological impact to 2.5M people at this is stage is already far too much