←back to thread

517 points xbar | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
smoothjazz ◴[] No.39143094[source]
Glad to see Israel face some responsibility for its horrific acts against civilians.

> The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them

Sounds like a ceasefire to me. How else would they do this? Definitely not with any of the military tactics Israel is currently using.

replies(9): >>39143256 #>>39143604 #>>39146080 #>>39146492 #>>39146501 #>>39146587 #>>39146634 #>>39148539 #>>39160386 #
shmatt ◴[] No.39146080[source]
Except SA specifically asked the court to require a ceasefire, which would have immediate consequences via security council vote and no more munitions landing in Israel. And the judges voted it down

This isn't a read between the lines situation, because SA's request was specifically for the court to temporarily rule for a full immediate ceasefire until the larger case could be heard

What is interesting here is that by mis-reading the verdict like yourself, and Israel assuming the worst, both sides immediately came out saying today was a huge win. So at least we have that, everyone (but the Palestinians, who aren't a side in this case) is happy

replies(3): >>39146496 #>>39146568 #>>39146800 #
smoothjazz ◴[] No.39146496[source]
Honestly I'm not trying to mis-read the verdict which is why I asked the question. I think all of Israel's strategies to date include the death of Palestinians. Since that's explicitly forbidden with that ruling, how will they continue to fight? Will they just ignore the ruling or change tactics?
replies(4): >>39146523 #>>39146853 #>>39149749 #>>39149801 #
layer8 ◴[] No.39146853[source]
The measures ordered by the UN court are in references to Article II of the Genocide Convention [0], which limits the scope to “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, where the court identifies the group as “Palestinians in Gaza”. So it’s the intent of genocide towards that group which is the deciding factor. As long as the actions do not carry that intent (and are plausible as such), they are not prohibited.

My reading is that the court is basically saying “You are presently running the risk of committing genocide, please take all measures in your power to prevent that.”

[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...

replies(1): >>39147169 #
esafak ◴[] No.39147169[source]
They will claim they are attempting to kill Hamas militants and any non-Hamas Palestinians deaths are incidental. You can do anything with this excuse. Did the court close this loophole?
replies(3): >>39147494 #>>39148123 #>>39148262 #
1. bawolff ◴[] No.39148123[source]
Its not really a loop hole but kind of the main intention of the law.

Too many civilian deaths is for war crimes & crimes against humanity, not the crime of genocide.