RugbyRebels

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.

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.

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

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 10:41 am 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 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 11:21 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 10:41 am 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

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 11:08 pm What happens in a month when Israel returns to icj in a month and nothing has changed? Presumably icj demand a ceasefire?

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 11:02 am 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 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:13 pm Sick.

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

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 9:10 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:13 pm Sick.

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

Most moral army in the world don't ye know

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.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:45 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:16 pm Jeez the speaker has hung himself out to dry here

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:46 am

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:16 pm 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 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 8:12 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 6:46 am

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:16 pm 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