Correct - that’s the South African led one isn’t it? The 60 odd page full of legal jargon one i read a few days ago? Posted the same time as the Middle East now article that was edited?
Because the conclusions they came to, in section 63 off the top of my head, is that there are credible claims, and the best way forward is to call for a cease fire so claims can be investigated. It did not say Israel is committing genocide - it said there are events and actions that need to be investigated on both sides.
It discusses the Israel blockade of aid, and Israel response as to why it was done. That attacks were carried out on civilian infrastructure that Hamas was using… and the blatant attack on civilians that sparked off this whole new round of suffering.
One war crime does not justify the other, make no mistake I am not claiming that. But it seems awfully continent how many people are taking one line of a very detailed and balanced report and ignoring the entirety of the context of it.
Well let’s apply this argument to every other part of life - because yes, if you are killing off a population when you have an overwhelming force yes it will be quick.
Is 3% of a population being Mexican an invasion, or is it people living their life?
Is a 100pt to 103pt basketball game a clear example of the best team, or a small skill difference?
Is 3% of crime being committed by a black person indicative of a crime driven cultural issue, or a few people?
A 3% death rate in a modern conflict in a high density urban environment is not a genocide - civilians die in war. Have many been killed needlessly- absolutely. Are there questions on how Israel has been operating - absolutely. Are there individuals in the IDF that have deliberately killed civilians in cold blood - about as close to 100% as you can get. Is it a genocide - no.
They haven’t ruled it’s genocide yet. That’ll take years. They’ve ruled there is sufficient evidence to investigate if what has happened is genocide. Note all the caveats and qualifiers:
The court ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza. “At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention,” the judges said. The ruling required Israel to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to preserve evidence related to any allegations of genocide there.
Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave, it said.
However, the court did not demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, something that Israel says would allow Hamas militants to regroup and to launch new attacks on the country. The court also said it was “gravely concerned” about the fate of hostages held in Gaza and called on Hamas and other armed groups to immediately release them without conditions.
For context: over 10 million people died in the Congo Free State. It is generally agreed that it wasn’t a genocide, because it wasn’t intentional. It is possible that the ICJ will ultimately decide what happened in Gaza is not genocide.
Thank you for putting this much more eloquent that I have managed over the last week or so.
I’ve argued with soo many people over the ICJ report - they pick the two words “genocide” and “Israel” without reading the full content behind it and the conclusions it drew. Which is a shame because its a beautifully written, factual and balanced report.
So your argument against the fact of Israel committing genocide is they aren’t doing it fast enough? Wow.
Kind of?
Historically at least it’s a pretty normal amount of civilian casualties and their stated goal of Hamas vs Palestine helps a lot.
But everything outside the conflict should be enough, it wasn’t exactly paradise to be a Palestinian living in Israel pre-conflict
I think the thing that many aren’t following is that there are other war crimes than genocide, and one doesn’t mean the other.
ICJ ruled that the claims of genocide are credible, so I’m going to keep calling it genocide.
Correct - that’s the South African led one isn’t it? The 60 odd page full of legal jargon one i read a few days ago? Posted the same time as the Middle East now article that was edited?
Because the conclusions they came to, in section 63 off the top of my head, is that there are credible claims, and the best way forward is to call for a cease fire so claims can be investigated. It did not say Israel is committing genocide - it said there are events and actions that need to be investigated on both sides.
It discusses the Israel blockade of aid, and Israel response as to why it was done. That attacks were carried out on civilian infrastructure that Hamas was using… and the blatant attack on civilians that sparked off this whole new round of suffering.
One war crime does not justify the other, make no mistake I am not claiming that. But it seems awfully continent how many people are taking one line of a very detailed and balanced report and ignoring the entirety of the context of it.
What do you mean by pre-conflict? collective punishment has been Israeli policy since its founding.
Before the current situation ie. October 7th Israel has been quite hostile to Palestinians
Well let’s apply this argument to every other part of life - because yes, if you are killing off a population when you have an overwhelming force yes it will be quick.
Is 3% of a population being Mexican an invasion, or is it people living their life?
Is a 100pt to 103pt basketball game a clear example of the best team, or a small skill difference?
Is 3% of crime being committed by a black person indicative of a crime driven cultural issue, or a few people?
A 3% death rate in a modern conflict in a high density urban environment is not a genocide - civilians die in war. Have many been killed needlessly- absolutely. Are there questions on how Israel has been operating - absolutely. Are there individuals in the IDF that have deliberately killed civilians in cold blood - about as close to 100% as you can get. Is it a genocide - no.
That’s a lot of words to say you’re racist and pro-genocide, but you go off, I guess.
Thats alot of loaded words thrown out without any backing, evidence or legal bias.
Or was it too much reading so you just threw out the first insult you could?
Icj ruled it a genocide so that’s what I’m calling it. You’re doing a lot of work to justify genocide. Do you find that rewarding?
They haven’t ruled it’s genocide yet. That’ll take years. They’ve ruled there is sufficient evidence to investigate if what has happened is genocide. Note all the caveats and qualifiers:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/key-takeaways-world-court-decision-israei-genocide-case-2024-01-26/
For context: over 10 million people died in the Congo Free State. It is generally agreed that it wasn’t a genocide, because it wasn’t intentional. It is possible that the ICJ will ultimately decide what happened in Gaza is not genocide.
Thank you for putting this much more eloquent that I have managed over the last week or so.
I’ve argued with soo many people over the ICJ report - they pick the two words “genocide” and “Israel” without reading the full content behind it and the conclusions it drew. Which is a shame because its a beautifully written, factual and balanced report.