South African officials and lawyers on Thursday made their case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague to show that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population of Gaza.
The over three-hour hearing was an indictment of the US-backed Israeli campaign in Gaza, which has killed over 23,000 Palestinians, mainly women and children, in just over three months.
South Africa said Israel breached the Genocide Convention of 1948, which Israel is a signatory to, and Pretoria invoked to bring Israel to the ICJ. Article II of the Convention defines genocide as “a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.”
Referencing the October 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel, South African Justice Minister Ronald Lamola said that no “armed attack on a state territory, no matter how serious, even an attack involving atrocity crimes, can provide justification for or defense to breaches to the Convention whether it’s a matter of law or morality.”
South Africa referenced Israel’s brutal bombing campaign and siege tactics to demonstrate that its actions are genocidal. “For the past 96 days, Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare,” said Adila Hassim, one of the lawyers representing South Africa.
“Palestinians in Gaza are being killed by Israeli weaponry and bombs from air, land, and sea. They are also at immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration, and disease as a result of the ongoing siege … the level of Israel’s killing is so extensive that nowhere is safe in Gaza,” she said.
To prove that Israel is committing genocide, South Africa needs to demonstrate that Israeli officials have the intent to do so. South Africa pointed to the genocidal rhetoric from Israeli officials that has been common since October 7, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referencing the Bible story about the nation of Amalek.
“You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember, and we are fighting,” Netanyahu said in October.
Chapter 15, verse 3 of the Bible book of 1 Samuel reads: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel, and ass.”
The ruling on whether or not Israel is committing genocide could take years, but South Africa is asking the ICJ to immediately order a halt to Israel’s military operations. The ICJ doesn’t have the power to enforce its orders, but the ruling would be a major diplomatic blow for Israel and its primary backer, the US, and would increase international pressure on both parties to end the slaughter.
Israeli officials responded to Thursday’s hearing by accusing South Africa of being the “legal arm” of Hamas. Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said the trial was “one of the greatest shows of hypocrisy in history, compounded by a series of false and baseless claims.”
“Israeli officials responded to Thursday’s [genocide] hearing by accusing South Africa of being the ‘legal arm’ of Hamas.”
ie – responded with the same vicious ad hominem that marks Israel’s – and its mainly US boosters’ – attacks on any criticism of Israel’s inveterate, multiple high crimes against Palestinians.
I hope it’s as instructive to the anti-Semitic, blood libelous judges of the ICJ as it is to the rest of the world. Any human on Earth still worthy of the term human is a member of Hamas in the Zionist dictionary. It’s alternately sad, comical, outrageous and neurotoxically dumb, but most of all fortunately it is self-defeating.
I don’t get it? Are you saying that members of Hamas are not humans?
He forgot the /s tag
No I am saying Israel accusing South Africa of being or serving as the legal arm of Hamas is beyond idiotic.
Yes the Zionist leadership has lost all reason & is off in some ancient religious delusion that G-d has given them a blank check to kill whomever is in their way. We will now get to see if the court is on board their loco ship.
The bottles stand as empty
As they were filled before
Time that was in plenty
But from that cup no more
Though I could not caution all
I still might warn a few
Don’t lend your hand to raise no flag
Atop no ship of fools
Ship of fools
On a cruel sea
Ship of fools
Sail away from me
It was later than I thought
When I first believed you
Now I cannot share your laughter
Ship of fools
It was later than I thought
When I first believed you
Now I cannot share your laughter
Ship of fools
https://youtu.be/5b-I4mFVjrU?t=328
Too much inbreeding maybe…???
Well,what is YOUR suggestion as to how to deal with the Hamas acts of terrorism and genocide?
Israeli terrorism is the chicken and Hamas terrorism is the egg. Take off the blinders.
Arab Moslems were persecuting Arab Jews for 1300 years before Zionism.Take offyour own blinders. Still no solution from you!
When do you believe Zionism started ?
In the 20th century with the start of the Modern State of Israel ?
Or in the 2nd to 5th centuries CE when Judaistic tribes sought to consolidate for themselves a homeland ?
Your answer is very important towards your thesis…
20 years of extreme right racism in government was definitely not a helpful approach.
These Lukidnik leaders have been war criminals for a long time.
Is there a name for gov’t by war criminals?
I call it Uncle Sammy.
Hamas did not commit genocide. They carried out a rather brilliant and very succesful military operation against primarily military targets. Or if you like, you could compare it to a slave rebellion, those also tend to be rather violent. Or more accurately reflecting historical parallels compare it to the Warsaw uprising with the Israel rather faithfully replicating the role of Nazi Germany before, during and after.
The heroic Jews of the Warsaw ghetto uprising would be terrorists in the eyes of the Nazi’s if the term carried the same rethorical charge in Western politics it has today. But it would be as meaningless a term beyond its magical power as a discussion stopper then as now.
My suggestion is Israel stops Apartheid, stops institutionalized racism dismantles the anachronistic Zionist state, respects and starts fitting into the existing world order where states attribute the rights of their citizens on citizenship instead of ethnicity.
You remove the endless barrage of grievous injustices and you remove the need to resist that injustice. People want to live, prosper and have their kids have it better than them.
“South Africa of being the ‘legal arm’ of Hamas.”
That one couldn’t have been properly audience tested.
Let’s not forget that Israel continued its support of apartheid to the end.
Israel practices ever more virulent apartheid in Palestine. It’s a version that’s far more murderous than even S Africa’s.
Stalin murdered 30 million and Mao-how many millions.
Grasping at straws?
Are you as dumb as your comments make you appear?
That’s a rare hybrid of Whataboutism and Non-Sequitorosis.
Non-fatal, non-contageous, very unconvincing in all clinical trials. Amoxcillin could clear that up in 7-10 days.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said the trial was “one of the greatest shows of hypocrisy in history, compounded by a series of false and baseless claims.”
The numbers are out there. You have to wonder what number of dead or near death, does there have to be before they aren’t false and blameless claims to this guy. Or Biden/Blinken. Is there a number?
Nope. There is no limit to the number of acceptable civilian casualties. Israel wants that land, Palestinians and the rest of the world be damned. Their actions are the very definition of genocide, as today’s presentations before the ICJ made clear.
Israel foreign minister spokesman is another delusional just like Trump…!
All’s fair when dealing with love and Amalek.
All’s stupid when conjuring up divine license to mass murder the innocent to extend ones holdings or enrich the aggressors
The true aggressors are those that drove Jews from the Arab and European lands.
So this boils down to an unsexy threeway issue between the Abrahamic religions, then.
The judges have been threatened and coerced by Washington’s AIPAC proxies.
The court will not rule against Washington.
I don’t see how the ICJ couldn’t rule in favor of RSA’s accusation against the ASI. If this isn’t genocide by the definition of Article II, then nothing ever would or could meet the definition.
If the ICJ succumbs to any political pressure from the USA or the defendant, it proves itself worthless. If it fails to deliver a clear decision against blatantly evident genocidal tactics, it proves itself worthless. If the Court follows the evidence and legal precedents and procedures, justice will be served and the ICJ will have done its job.
“If the Court follows the evidence and legal precedents and procedures, justice will be ordered served and the ICJ will have done its job.”
Ordering the serving of justice is one thing.
Actually serving it is another, harder thing. When Israel and the US denounce the ruling and say they’re going to ignore it, I guess we’ll find out who wants to do the real work of enforcing it.
ICJ ruling against Russia for Ukraine went unenforced.
Oh, you noticed that?
As it did in the case of Nicaragua vs US support of Contra’s in which the US was condemned for among a host of terrorist crimes undermining peaceful maritime commerce, in the most generous interpretation the reason for which the US has now resorted to bombing Yemen with a couple of their most servile lackeys.
The ruling of ICJ in the case Russia vs Ukraine was about provisional relief, not the indictment itself. Which is why it would be very hard for the ICJ to rule against provional relief for Gaza and still hold on to a semblance of legitimacy.
What was the nature of the accusation against the Russian Federation in that case ? Was it unlawful military conduct / issues of national sovereignty, or was Kiev alleging ethnic cleansing or genocide by the Russian Federation ?
Context is key here. Two court decisions, even from the same court, may not be equivalent in scope or scale.
Nobody is going to or can enforce anything… But the ruling, either pro or against Israel will only help isolation of US and Israel from the rest of the world significantly…!
The point is obviously not that the ICC will live up to its charter, but for a few members of the international community to do the honorable – and human – thing.
Biden has soiled what remains of his tattered reputation entirely and is beyond any redemption. Netanyahu is beyond the pale and belongs in the Hague, in chains.
When asked to comment, Blinken said the charges are baseless. He should have said he hasn’t studied the documents or he’ll wait until the court rules. But he represents Israel and not the USA.
He represents the MIC.
“Ordering the serving of justice is one thing.
Actually serving it is another, harder thing.”
Ahh – two excellent distinctions WITH significant differences ! That’s a rare thing to get.
I am hopeful that an ICJ ruling against the ASI would trigger a cascading series of international and domestic responses.
Where I live, if a person has a serious heart-attack, stroke, or related cognitive impairment, the attending medical physicians and/or hospital are obligated to report this to (our version of) the DMV, and the person’s driver’s license is suspended automatically, pending medical clearance to drive again.
While an official ruling of genocidal conduct does not itself force the ASI to even notice, let alone stop; having such an indictment officially “on file” will demand that governments, international businesses and organizations will be compelled, by their own laws or ethical mission-statements, to withdraw or suspend economic and political ties with the ASI.
It’ll be the one time that companies and governments “going ‘woke'” will actually be of use to society.
Unfortunately, the world’s bigger military and economic players ignore the ICJ at will. Definitely the US, but also Russia (the ICJ ordered them to cease operations in Ukraine) and China (the ICJ ruled that “China’s claims of historic rights within the nine-dash line, which Beijing uses to demarcate its claims in the South China Sea, were without legal foundation”).
Israel is like a little bully who runs behind his big brother after hitting someone, and that big brother is the US. If every other country on earth boycotts/sanctions Israel, Congress will fall all over itself to get pallets full of hundred dollar bills on the way to make up for it.
“…bigger military and economic players ignore the ICJ at will.”
Oh, certainly they do. I suppose I value a potential ICJ ruling against the ASI because it formally establishes a genocide charge, elevating the indictment from ‘allegation’ to ‘legal ruling’. And therefore puts any country “on record” if they then continue to aid or abet the ASI in its actions in Gaza.
“If every other country on earth boycotts/sanctions Israel, Congress will fall all over itself to get pallets full of hundred dollar bills on the way to make up for it.”
Certainly so. And that I value, too, because it’s more and more evidence of Washington elites putting their own narrow (self-) interests ahead of that of the American people. And that, not likely to produce an isolationist or true-MAGA (read : not horribly divisive) spirit in the average voting citizen, may well create an upswing in noninterventionalism as a cornerstone of “new politics”.
Semi-related question, what does ASI stand for?
Ah – “Apartheid State of Israel”.
No more or less ironically incorrect than the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of (north) Korea.
What about our state dept constantly screaming about “rules based international order”? If Israel is found guilty and ordered to withdraw from Gaza, shouldn’t the USA halt all aid to Israel until that is done? This will be fun to watch.
As others have noted it will be hard for the ICJ by itself to enforce any rulings, but it can send them to the security council for a vote. This seems to be the strategy. They are going to make the USA veto it in the security council and illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the USA (as if anyone needed more evidence of this). I would hope that its rapidly waning influence in global affairs would spur the US delegation to at least abstain and let the security council condemn Israel. Unlike the general assembly, the security council has some teeth and at least has the possibility of strong arming Israel. Of course, again, this is dependent on if the USA comes to its senses or not.
The Biden administration is wholly complicit in this obscenity. They are trapped in their own disgusting tangle of schemes to rule the world and will never do the honorable thing.
They have no honor.
“…illustrate the moral bankruptcy of the USA…”
And I think that’s the greatest ‘win’ for a toothless (be it toothless) ICJ decision.
Let’s stop pretending, let’s get some cards on the table and actually set aside the horsesh*t non-diplomacy that passes for diplomacy in the media and public perception.
We know the USA, its (literal) archipelago of toadies in the South Pacific, a good chunk of the EU, and my own faltering Canada, only support the ASI because of nuclear concerns, having a useful violent Middle Eastern proxy-ally, and/or said nations actually believe 2/3rds of the Abrahamic religions are true.
Stop pretending, plant yourselves publicly on the wrong side of history, and let’s live with our dipwad foreign policies for centuries to come. A little honesty – too much to ask in 2k024 ?
The Achilles heel that this case will fail on is the issue of genocidal intent. There is lots of evidence that Israel is killing large numbers of Palestinians in Gaza, but the evidence that the motive behind the killing is genocidal intent to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group itself is somewhere between weak and non-existent.
The South Africans cite incriminating statements made by various Israelis as proof of genocidal intent in their lawsuit, but the statements are either taken out of context, made by people who aren’t part of the military chain of command, or don’t actually express genocidal intent.
Genocide is an intent specific crime. It has nothing to do with the number of people you kill. It’s all about the underlying motive. You have to prove that Israel is killing Palestinians in Gaza for the explicit purpose of exterminating the Palestinian ethnic group.
If Israel is targeting Hamas regardless of civilians who might be trapped in the area, that’s horrible and it may be a war crime, but it isn’t genocide. You have to prove that Israel isn’t targeting Hamas, they’re targeting the Palestinian ethnic group itself. And I don’t think South Africa makes a very strong case.
Plus Pat is right, the judges at the ICJ are all bought. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, the court would exonerate them.
“…the motive behind the killing is genocidal intent to destroy the Palestinian ethnic group itself is somewhere between weak and non-existent.”
Have you forgotten that “…Article II of the Convention defines genocide as “a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.”” ? (emphasis mine)
I mean, I could have highlighted the ENTIRE definition as per Article II.
Every part of your Reply reads a s**tball ASI government apologetics. I mean, you realise at the end of the day, you’re going out of your way to DEFEND what is most likely genocide, right ?
Where your ‘best-case’ outcome is that you’re right because you managed to quibble over and weasel around some words to make intent into “not intent” or, more likely, to say “well, it’s only ethnic cleansing, guys, c’mon, enough with this overblown ‘genocide’ cliche, a’i’ight ?”
I mean, let’s pretend we’re on an antiwar website among like-minded fellow travelers. Let’s grant that the ICJ decides it’s genocide, and I will grant you as a belated Xmas gift your wild fantasy that in some weird way it’s NOT genocide.
And that the world, “duped” into thinking “only” ethnic cleansing is something much worse, rallies to stop the war in Gaza. And succeeds in doing so.
What’s the outcome ?
A m.f.-ing WAR, and mass killing, STOPS.
How is that a bad outcome for you ???
Given the U.S. Government’s propensity for “humanitarian intervention,” do you really want the ICJ to water-down the legal definition of genocide just to spite Israel? Has the thought occurred to you that if Israel loses it would set a precedent that would be used to justify military intervention elsewhere? (e.g. to justify a war/invasion of China to stop the “genocide” against the Uyghurs, to justify a war/invasion of Russia to stop the “genocide” against the Ukrainians, etc… ). And if you objected to any of those military interventions, you would either be accused of supporting genocide or genocide denial — which would likely be interpreted as “hate speech” and get you banned from social media or, in certain countries, arrested.
Remember the old adage, be careful what you wish for because you might get it.
No worries – I never get what I wish for.
As to
“…water-down the legal definition of genocide…”
1. The ICJ stands poised to uphold the legal definition of genocide in this case.
“…Article II of the Convention defines genocide as “a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.””
2. Again, to effects. Let’s go Punnett Square here. Four possible scenarios :
A – ICJ calls the IDF’s ‘war’ against Gazinians a genocide. In reality : It IS genocide. Action is taken to stop the war. Result : a genocidal war is stopped, Gaza residents not wiped out.
B – ICJ calls the IDF’s ‘war’ against Gazinians a genocide. In reality : It is NOT genocide. Action is taken to stop the war. Result : a ‘regular’ war is stopped, and many Gaza residents are not killed.
C – ICJ DOES NOT call the IDF’s ‘war’ against Gazinians a genocide. In reality : It IS genocide. No action is taken to stop the war. Result : all Gaza residents wiped out.
D – ICJ DOES NOT call the IDF’s ‘war’ against Gazinians a genocide. In reality : It IS NOT genocide. No action is taken to stop the war. Result : a ‘regular’ war is NOT stopped, and many Gaza residents ARE killed.
Looking at the outcomes … is it not true that in the two options where this IDF action against Gaza is called ‘genocide’ (whether true or not) and action is taken to stop what is happening, both lead to fewer people dying ???
Apply the metrics to the Russian Federation and DPRC equally, and you STILL arrive at stopping a war and fewer people dying from it.
Suppose the ICJ issues a ruling. What stops Russia, China, or Israel from ignoring the ruling and doing whatever they want to do anyway? The ICJ’s rulings only matter to the extent that they can be used for war propaganda by the belligerents.
The same as stops anyone from obeying any authority. Basically nothing.
But as a society and for the sake of overarching civilisation as a whole, we have come to something of a “social contract”. One aspect is (wish I could recall who coined it) the concept of “violence vouchers” – that is to say, we as humans have agreed that violence is not okay EXCEPT by police and military in proscribed circumstances; from detainment and physical restraint up to lethal force.
Another aspect is that we all “agree” to abide by rules, covenants, agreements on personal, public, domestic, international conduct. Thus any agreement is valid only by mutual consent and assent, with those holding “violence vouchers” permitted to enforce the rules.
As with evolutionary biology in higher-order species, those who abide and work together and act within social conventions, “fit” and tend to survive. Those that do not, fall to the “out-group” in social species and are decidedly less likely to survive on their own (best case) or may be attacked, killed, eliminated if they threaten the group collective (worst case).
Over time, those nations constantly and consistently flouting international law, will find themselves in the “out-group” of isolation.
If you cannot trust the RF, DPRK, DPRC, ASI, or USA – even if they have stuff you want to trade for or you have stuff they want to trade for, why bother ? You’ll just end up screwed over, hurt, or dead because they demonstrate they do not respect our mutual civil conventions for anyone.
Their statements are not taken out of context. If one follows the footnotes and sources provided one will find that none of the statements were out of context. Please give one example of a statement being out of context where it would substantially change the meaning.
The remember Amalek quote from Netanyahu is out of context.
Here is a video of his whole speech:
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/netanyahu-announces-idf-will-expand-ground-operations-in-gaza-196617285611
I’ve posted now & again on this site, I know how sometimes the wrong word gets used an a meaning completely changes.
Hah, like that time I myself said ““Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel, and ass.”” and it was taken out of context when IN FACT, i was suggesting that veganism might be a better lifestyle choice for the environment’s sake.
I mean, HOW do the exact words of an exact story to which someone alludes, POSSIBLY get so turned around as to suggest the actual intent of the words ?
How is that out of context? The point of the Biblical story is that the Israelites were to not just defeat the army of the Amalekites, but to slaughter all non-combatants. He continues and links those biblical warriors to the modern day IDF saying that there is an “unbroken chain.” It seems to me the context is all too clear. Also, this speech is not the only reference he has made to Amalek. So you can claim that it is out of context all you want, but for those who are familiar with the Hebrew scriptures the implications are all too clear.
Israel has nothing but name calling, LIES, false information, propaganda, etc., in response to legitimate accusations. They are being accused of Genocide, so show your evidence, that what you are doing is not Genocide, but they have NONE. Thus they resort to LYING! Shame on the USA for their complicity, shame on all the Republicans and Democrats. Please do not vote for the treasonous two Parties, find others who still believe in the Constitution and vote for them.
“so show your evidence, that what you are doing is not Genocide” That not how it works. South Africa has prove that Israel is committing genocide. Claiming it is occurring is not the same as proving it.
South Africa made a strong case. Genocidal intent was clearly established. But maybe that’s not enough. Perhaps they need to truck the tens of thousands of corpses to the ICJ. Just relying on Israeli statistics, which more or less match what the Palestinians claim, may not be sufficient. /sarc
They only have to prove genocidal intent (which I as you believe they clearly have) and that there is a case pima facie a genocide is underway. That would allow the court to rule they have jurisdiction and then to issue an interim measure to halt military operations until the case is able to be decided.
Really? Because the evidence of genocidal intent seems to be the weakest part of their case.
In your opinion, what is the strongest piece of evidence that Israel is acting with genocidal intent?
The words of the Israeli leadership and then the massacre that has been prosecuted.
Who is prosecuting the Hamas leadership for its murder of Israeli civilians. Not once,did anyone speak of prosecuting Arafat-so therefore the ICJ has no value execept creating jobs.
Did Israel ever charge the state of Palestine with crimes at the ICJ?
Your lack of historical knowledge is showing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Karameh
https://youtu.be/67KXRi4gCSw
All the thousands of dead bodies and flattened housing ought to be able to dispell their obfuscation.
Lard tunderin’ Jaysus – how are you rule-lawyering in DEFENSE of what is, at best, “only” mass murder, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing ???
I’m not claiming you made the awesome GI Joe toys I played with as a kid, but a case can be made that perhaps you ARE a Hasbro troll.
I don’t think you are, btw. I think you’re a real person who really has this opinion – and it’s starting to worry and/or frighten me.
Over twenty thousand dead bodies and hospitals and houses reduced to rubble? Entire families wiped out? Widespread starvation, thirst, and disease thanks to food, water, and aid being blocked if not bombed? I’d say that’s pretty good evidence something is up.
Maybe we should just all hold hands and sing.
https://youtu.be/67KXRi4gCSw
All the dead bodies of innocents. women & children is the strongest mass of evidence that all their supporters seem to ignore. One can confidently say their claims do pass the smell test. There where smell of rotting flesh overwhelms.
They have proven it with the words of Israel’s leaders. Have you read the South African filing, or do you only get your opinions from corporate propaganda rags?
I read the South African filing and the quotes they cited either didn’t express genocidal intent, or if they did they weren’t made by people who were part of the military chain of command.
I thought the case they made was pretty damn weak.
Really because they quote the words of the both the Prime Minister and Minister of Defense expressing genocidal intent. The Minister of defense specifically says that Israel is “imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” He goes on to say that “We have released all restraints. Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week. It will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.” If that doesn’t express genocidal intent I don’t know what does. There are other quotes from, I believe, all thirteen cabinet ministers expressing similar dehumanizing language and exhortations to kill Palestinians as a means of revenge for the Oct. 7 attack. If not this I don’t know what you would consider genocidal intent other than an official statement from the Israeli government say “we are going to genocide the Palestinians.”
When he said “we are fighting human animals,” he was talking about Hamas.
The Genocide convention doesn’t apply to groups like Hamas, it only applies to ethnic, racial, and religious groups.
The fact that he said we’re imposing a siege on Gaza isn’t here or there unless you can prove that the intent of the siege is to exterminate the Palestinian ethnic group.
If the intent of the siege is to destroy Hamas, then it’s not genocidal no matter how many people die.
Genocide and mass murder aren’t the same thing. The thing that defines genocide is genocidal intent to destroy an ethnic, racial, or religious group as such.
If the intent is to destroy an organization like Hamas, and the civilian population gets caught in the crossfire and killed that can amount to other war crimes, but it’s not genocide unless the underlying purpose behind the killing is the extermination of an ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. If civilian deaths are the byproduct of some non-genocidal endeavor (e.g. the destruction of Hamas), then it’s not genocide.
It’s clear that they are not targeting Hamas. Hamas is not among the civilians they are deep underground. This has been ethnic cleansing at best genocide at worst. You can whitewash all you want, but no one is buying this tired schtick.
It’s ethnic cleansing for sure, but there’s a world of difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Ethnic cleansing is the removal of an ethnic group from a particular geographic area. It can entail killing, but it can also entail expulsion. The goal isn’t the extermination of the ethnic group per se, it’s the removal of the group from a given area.
With genocide, the goal isn’t simply the displacement of the group, the goal is the extermination of the group. If you’re engaged in genocide, you don’t want the ethnic group you’re targeting to escape because your goal is to exterminate them, not to simply remove them from the area.
Evicting is ethnic cleansing bombing inhabited housing stock is genocide. Killing the innocent is genocide, war
crime & genocide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No. Killing innocent people isn’t genocide unless you are killing them with the explicit intention of exterminating their ethnic group.
noun
the deliberate killing or severe mistreatment of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
Sounds exactly like what Israel is doing.
I agree.
Fuck off lying fool. Kill the natives and steal their land is the Zionist MO.. They have directed their slaughter at the innocent and the children.
Oh,like the Yemini Jews slaughtered,the Syrian Jewish girls raped and mutilated,then trussed up in sacks and dumped on their parents front doors,the Israelis who had their women defiled and their fingers cut off before being wired together and burned alive.
Your rando torture-prØn ramblings both bore and tire me, AND make me hope you have nominated a “grumble buddy” to come wipe the Search History of your browser in the event of your untimely passing some day in the (hopefully distant) future.
“imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”.
Sounds like the “intent” was to kill them all. Even if he was talking only about Hamas when he said ” fighting human animals”. Hard to claim differently unless he can live with NO ELECTRICITY, NO FOOD, NO WATER , NO FUEL.
Yeah, I mean, how easy would it have been to have said “…Hamas are human animals and we are acting accordingly.”
If that had been the intended statement.
Which, I believe, it was not.
What about all the dead children & men in IDF UNIFORMS saying erase the children?
The numbers are strong, What is weak is the denial of the perpetrators, in fact an insult to any thinking person who does not profit from this atrocity.
“quotes [by South Africa] either didn’t express genocidal intent, or if they did they weren’t made by people who were part of the military chain of command.”
1/ “Didn’t express genocidal intent”? Advance thanks for supporting an otherwise worthless claim.
2/ “or if they did they weren’t made by people who were part of the military chain of command.”
a/ “If they did”? Oh good – then you admit Israeli officials in fact did “express genocidal intent.”
b/ Not “part of…military chain of command”?
So what?
You admit Israelis – many quoted were high officials – made “genocidal intent” statements. Those statements were made publicly – for every Israeli to hear.
Got news for ya, Franky: high officials expressing “genocidal intent” as soldiers are slaughtering and starving civilians – s’called inciting genocide.
Oh but wait wait wait! Wanna say ‘it’s only genocide if a command hits every point top to bottom?’
What, that’s a legal standard in genocide law and case history, frankjie?
Show where – otherwise yr making up crap.
Ginah Howard: “show your evidence, that what you are doing is not Genocide”
Tim Burns: “That not how it works. South Africa has prove that Israel is committing genocide.”
1/ Obviously, Ginah meant “show…evidence” in answer to South Africa’s evidence-supported “accusations” that Israel is engaged in the high crime of genocide.
And oooobviously, Timmy – in response to South Africa’s evidence-supported argument, the burden was then on Israel to mount a defense – a defense “show[ing]…evidence” – that it is “not,” in fact, “committing genocide.”
2/ No, South Africa does not have “ha[ve] to “prove that Israel is committing genocide.” It only has to prove that it is plausible that Israel is “committing genocide.”
“immediately order a halt to Israel’s military operations” Maybe I missed something. Should they not be asking for both sides to halt military operations.
No, because Hamas is not currently committing genocide. This is not about Hamas, but about Israeli conduct.
So what they are asking for is to stop the IDF from military operations but allow Hamas to continue. That is really dumb. It would allow terrorists to embed themself with civilians and fire at will against someone.
If Israel would give the Palestinians free and equal rights then Hamas would cease to exist. This is a problem of Israel’s own making. It turns out when you keep people in an open air concentration camp for 16 years there’s some pushback. Now that there was pushback Israel is putting it’s true character as not only an apartheid state on display for the world to see, but also it’s genocidal nature as well.
If Hamas would give its own citizens human rights,they would leave women,gays,political opponents,and Israel alone.
Whatever the problems with Hamas are, they are not the ones currently perpetrating a genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Hamas is doing what the ASI government designed & built it to do.
Now the ASI is following the adage “First rule of assassination : kill the assassins” and turning on the Useful Idiots the ASI created – as Hamas has served its ultimate casus belli purpose.
Good for South Africa. Not that I would expect much to come from it that will change things imminently, but keep getting the message out about the atrocities, and the role of the U.S. as well as Israel and perhaps one day there will be a reckoning.
We should expect something from it… Whatever the verdict, it would become part of history…!
Let us all hope that justice will prevail and that genocide and other crimes against humanity are not swept under the rug.
Let us bring civilization back to the world, not brute force with modern armaments.
The Irish KC Lawyer arguing the key details of the lawsuit are worth watching (30 minutes video from courtroom)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=FryDCvI7YLo&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.craigmurray.org.uk%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo
The question is not the verdict, rather are the ICJ judges corrupt or not…?!
You are assuming that if the ICJ judges rule for Israel they must be corrupt. But if they rule against Israel they must be honest judges.
What other conclusion could one reach, given the overwhelming evidence indicting the ASI ??
The “overwhelming evidence” is your opinion. The judges will have their own. Just because you believe you are right does not mean the judges will agree.
I know the ASI has the best lawyers in the world, but, even they will be hard-pressed to “spin” the comments of ASI officials and the observed actions of the IDF as anything but exactly-what-it-looks-like.
“Opinion” did not factor into reaction to the photos of liberated Auschwitz. That too was exactly what it looked like. I don’t think any judges, whether yourself or Sully or other “genocide apologists” on these threads, could be nuts enough to say ‘nu-uh, they were all just intermittent-fasting’.
I don’t believe I’m right. I believe the evidence is factual and the truth is what the facts are. What I think just aligns with that.
Yes.
South Africa recently declared that the incendiary song “Kill the Boer” is not hate speech or genocidal but told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague on Thursday that phrases like “destroy Hamas” proved Israel’s “genocidal intent” in Gaza.
What’s wrong with the idea of killing the racist invaders and killers?
So, you are not antiwar, my point.
LOL. I’m not a pacifist. Supporting armed resistance to Israel’s genocide in Gaza does not make me pro-war, Zionist.
Doesn’t change my point,
you are not “antiwar”.
And you?
Antiwar except as a defense against aggression.
So you’re not antiwar either, as that’s exactly my position, which you labeled not antiwar.
The stink of desperation is wafting from the hasbara lately.
Just a realist. Aggression should not be tolerated; it is what starts wars.
The Palestinians and their supporters agree. The world should never have tolerated the Nakba.
You want a “ceasefire” only to reload not end “war”. That is how we differ.
Greed starts wars. Sociopathy starts wars. Hatred starts wars.
Aggression is just logs added to kindling once the fire is lit.
Aggression is putting greed, sociopathy and hatred into action.
We agree then – the roots causes are greed, sociopathy, and hatred (one might merge this into ‘ignorance-hatred’ to be more precise).
Who then kills or takes from their neighbours when absent the desire for their land / possessions, and when possessed of compassion and empathy and understanding ?
Greed, sociopathy and hatred always exist, it’s when they are pushed into action (aggression) when it crosses the line.
Some people may “think” about robbing a bank (greed) but until they do it, it’s just a hateful, criminal thought.
Hey Stroker Ace, happy new year !
“…you are not “antiwar”.” veers into No True Scotsman territory… Just so yae know…
Yo, Uncle and a Happy 2024 to you!
“Yae” I know but more interested in the hypocritical aspects involved here.
I’m suggesting that to call onesself “antiwar” need not be an extreme position, nor a black-and-white binary one.
I think there can be degrees of antiwar, as there are degrees of vegetarianism / veganism (I CANNOT reference Amalek here in relation to veganism; did that elsewhere and it was taken TOTALLY out of context to mean exactly what I meant by it)
Hakeem ‘the dreamjoehill2’ Olajuwan states “Supporting armed resistance to Israel’s genocide in Gaza does not make me pro-war, Zionist.” He is correct. And perhaps he, as I, recognizes that there are some “conditionally acceptable” forms of war.
How ‘conditional’ and how we judge, will be subjective. Thus, a spectrum of antiwar opinions, not just an “any/every war = bad” fiat one-size-oughta-fit all statement.
Condemning one and not the other is hypocritical, that is my point.
He, you, I may differ re what is a justified response but touting SA as your moral defender is quite ludicrous.
Hakeem ‘the dreamjoehill2’ Olajuwan
You have a talent.
Not that many cases of death by vegetarianism last I heard.
I dunno – the National Meat Producers’ Foundation of America website claims as many as 225,000 deaths can be attributed to insufficient meat purchase & consumption (2016 being the last year for which data was available).
And NO CHANCE that organisation could be biased in their stats !
In other words,you allow some people to go to war when they feel like it,and others must sit there and take it. Really.
Isn’t that the premise of the American “war on terror” ?
‘Rules for thee, and not for me’. The USA writes itself license to attack countries 4° removed from 9/11 and cries foul if any of those people DARE to kill US troops (read : Syria).
No. My meaning is that some wars can be argued to have a necessity or a conditionally-acceptable purpose *by some antiwar people*, myself included.
It’s a spectrum and not a binary philosophy.
So American Indians feeling that way about you,
meh OK.
That’s not an answer. It’s a whataboutism.
Correct. American Indians commit crimes outside their reservation, to include murder of whites. Does our current government drop bombs on the reservations to retaliate?
A very insightful analogy.
End US aid to Israel.
C. Meyer, aye?
Brings to mind Cord, a rabbit hole of a guy if there ever was one.
But of course in the discussion of Israel, no one in US intel is more prominent than James “Jesus” Angleton, a twisted genius if thee ever was one.
The American Indians who commit crimes outside the reservation are individuals who do not represent the Indians at large or their government Big difference.
What’s wrong is that the IDF is killing anything that moves. I’ve said this elsewhere, but the IDF is nothing more than a mob in uniform, just a bunch of under-trained, undisciplined jackoffs AFAIC.
You appear to have misinterpreted my comment.
Perhaps I was vague. I was trying to assert Palestinian’s right to repel the Zionist colonialist invaders.
Duh-Hamas just invaded Israel.
That was three months ago.
Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza overshadow 10-7 in the minds of reasonable and compassionate people.
Yeah, we noticed how the 17th Hamassian Republican Guard just surrounded Lower East Tel Aviv, their siege-guns have been pounding through the night (no flags of truce, no cries for pity) and Netanyahu has ordered the IDF “not one step backwards”.
Give your head a shake, Sully. Hamassian forces conducted a raid on Oct 7th. That was it. Not an “invasion”.
Oh,you mean racist,homophobic sexistHamas.
LOL. No I meant genocidal, colonialist Israel.
I thought you righties despised identity politics.
Oh that’s tight! You have no principles. You’re just another immoral Zionist for genocide.
Israel is not the victim here. Your comparison is horribly flawed.
The South Africans who currently rule the country were the Palestinians prior to their having thrown the yoke off of their majority population.
Hamas is not the oppressed here: the women and children being slaughtered by the Israeli mob are. And the right of an oppressed minority to fight their oppressors is a part of international law, as much as there is any actual international “law”.
Condeming slaughter while supporting … slaughter,
is only for hypocrites.
Condoning slaughter while condemning slaughter is only for hypocrites.
Why do you support genocide?
This is pointless and can’t be enforced. But it’s designed to humiliated Israel. Unfortunately, humiliation works against those who care what other people think about them.
Israeli view is that it better to alive and hated,than dead and pitied. By way after the WWII extermination of most of European Jewry,many in the West did not give a shit.
Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu refers to Palestinians as “Amalek”, a Holy Bible enemy in the Old Testament. God commands the Israelites to annihilate the Amalekites, putting “to death men and women, children and infants”.
Netanyahu declared invasion: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible” (Torha, referencing 1 Samuel 15:3)
“Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not: but slay both man and women, infants and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (Michael Tracey@mtracey, GlobalResearch: Jonathan Cook January 10, 2024 and Middle East Eye, January 2024)
Netanyahu was obviously referencing the commandment in Deuteronomy 25:17-19.
17 Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
18 How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
19 Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.
Here is a video of the speech where he references Amalek:
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/netanyahu-announces-idf-will-expand-ground-operations-in-gaza-196617285611
I think it’s really reaching to cite that as proof of genocidal intent.
“I think it’s really reaching to cite that as proof of genocidal intent.”
Definition of allegory : “As a literary device or artistic form, an allegory is a narrative or visual representation in which a character, place, or event can be interpreted to represent a meaning with moral or political significance.”
Definition of allusion : “an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference.”
PLEASE explain how PM Netanyahu is not doing at least one, if not BOTH, of those things by referencing Amalek.
The Zionists are America are screwed. I watched the South Africans present their Case to the Court.
And Israel present their counter case?
“They started it” is not much of a counter.
Where they barking “Kill the Boers”?
I think you’re thinking the classic “Kill the Wabbit” Bugs Bunny & Elmer Fudd cartoon.
Yes, unfortunately for the Zionists and their blind backers, all the pulverized housing is quite clearly a fatal blow to any arguments of innocence. Combined with the shut off of food & water.
Stop firing missiles,and release hostages,and then there will be an end to pulverized housing.
Says who ?
I do not believe that, given this “once in a century” opportunity the ASI has obtained to eliminate the Palestinians of Gaza, PM Netanyahu and his Final Solutionists will stop what they have started. Until it is done, by their own metrics.
The problem with the Neocon-controlled Biden administration is that it has forgotten, or does not give a damn, about the Neurember Charter created in 1945 to bring Nazi war criminals to justice.
It does not care about international law and about the Genocide Convention of 1948.
The Biden administration has no sense of justice and it has no moral compass. It’s a shame.
Wow,the Bidens are almost as bad as the Chinese,Russians ,Sudanese,North Koreans
FJB and POS obama!