←back to thread

ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, stops short of ordering ceasefire

(apnews.com)
517 points xbar | 9 comments | 26 Jan 24 14:35 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
locallost ◴[26 Jan 24 21:36 UTC] No.39148816[source]▶
My views on the situation aside, the clearest I saw anyone communicate the issues from a global angle was the former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin

Translated here: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1718201487132885246

Viewed from the angle of the West, I think the message it needs to avoid isolating itself from the world is very unusual for Western media and important.

Quote:

"Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers."

And

"This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle."

replies(6): >>39148909 #>>39148934 #>>39148966 #>>39149209 #>>39150381 #>>39151344 #
pgeorgi ◴[26 Jan 24 21:43 UTC] No.39148909[source]▶
All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then?

Spend tons of money on iron dome to shoot down the rockets and hope that Hamas won't manage to conduct another massacre, even if "only" half the scope of October 7?

This mess features not one but two parties who currently reject the concept of a cease fire.

replies(10): >>39148950 #>>39149385 #>>39149812 #>>39149917 #>>39149974 #>>39150129 #>>39150783 #>>39151418 #>>39152292 #>>39153568 #
hypeit ◴[26 Jan 24 21:45 UTC] No.39148950[source]▶
Israel must face the reality that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land. There is no solution until that happens. Just like apartheid South Africa was dismantled, Israel has to face the same fate or forever be locked into warfare and oppressing Palestinians.
replies(7): >>39149079 #>>39149102 #>>39149282 #>>39149718 #>>39150003 #>>39150676 #>>39151173 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[26 Jan 24 21:53 UTC] No.39149079[source]▶
> that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land

I’ve heard this line from people who say the West Bank and Gaza are the occupied land, to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme.

> like apartheid South Africa was dismantled

South Africa wasn’t as militarised as the Levant has become, unfortunately. As long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, itself and through its proxies, any Mandela-type accounting is probably fruitless. (I am open to being convinced otherwise.)

replies(3): >>39149579 #>>39150569 #>>39151852 #
1. pphysch ◴[26 Jan 24 22:26 UTC] No.39149579[source]▶
Anyone can go on Google Earth, look at the official UN borders of Israel, then do a search in Hebrew or "synagogue" (obviously not every synagogue is Israeli) or "checkpoint" and very clearly see the Israeli settlements outside Israel's legal borders. Search "Hizma" for a good example [1].

To make it even more obvious, toggle the "street view" layer over one of these areas and see what gets highlighted.

There is a clear apartness between the neatly-planned Israeli settlements, often built on demolished Palestinian villages, and the organic scattering of indigenous, primarily Arab Palestinian villages. With militarized checkpoints in between. Anyone can see it, if they have the will and a web browser.

[1] - https://earth.google.com/web/search/Hizma+checkpoint,+Sderot...

replies(1): >>39149808 #
2. YZF ◴[26 Jan 24 22:43 UTC] No.39149808[source]▶
I'm not sure what point are you trying to make here.

Nobody, including Israelis, will argue about the status of Palestinians living outside of Israel's border, in areas that are occupied (a terminology of international law that Israel also agrees to, https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/occupation ) do not enjoy equal rights to Israelis (Arabs, Jews, Christians and other) living within Israel's borders. During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections? It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little).

"often built on demolished Palestinian villages" - I think this isn't generally true in the west bank, if that was what this statement was about. There are certainly demolished villages within Israel's borders (going back to the 1948 war).

replies(1): >>39149902 #
3. Wytwwww ◴[26 Jan 24 22:50 UTC] No.39149902[source]▶
> During the US occupation of Japan or Germany post WW-II could

Which was a temporary state and certainly didn't last for 50 years.

> It's true that Americans didn't settle those regions (they built military bases they still maintain so maybe a little).

There are no countries in Europe where US is maintaining military bases without full consent of their governments.

> could the Japanese or Germans travel freely to the US? Vote in the US elections?

How is this relevant? The people living in the occupied territories do not enjoy equal rights with the illegal Israeli settlers who have taken parts of them over. It's basically colonialism.

replies(2): >>39150227 #>>39150315 #
4. YZF ◴[26 Jan 24 23:19 UTC] No.39150227{3}[source]▶
If Jordan took back the west bank and Egypt took Gaza back then this also wouldn't last for 50 years. This is a unique situation where the party the land was occupied from doesn't want it back and the party that occupied it doesn't want it and the people living on this occupied land also don't really want it (or at least not willing to make peace in exchange for getting it). Because it's so hard to solve we've been stuck for 50 years. Still the legal status of this territory is the same as occupied Japan or Germany. It's a "temporary state", just a very long one.

In terms of "colonialism" I don't think it quite fits the strict definition of the word. Again it's a bit of a unique situation. If we compare to Europe many of the borders were drawn as a result of war, and this would be no different. The difference is that in Europe the population might have been expelled (e.g. like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czec... ) and the area annexed. Another interesting history to look at is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_border_change...

replies(2): >>39150349 #>>39151486 #
5. sgift ◴[26 Jan 24 23:27 UTC] No.39150315{3}[source]▶
> Which was a temporary state and certainly didn't last for 50 years.

Because the population in neither one enacted a serious of terror campaigns or "Intifadas" against them. If they did it's almost certain that the allies would still occupy Germany and the US Japan.

edit: Also, until the 2+4 treaty, formally known as the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" was signed in 1990 the allies still held part of their occupational rights over Germany. Not 50 years, but 45 at least.

replies(1): >>39150385 #
6. Wytwwww ◴[26 Jan 24 23:30 UTC] No.39150349{4}[source]▶
> the party that occupied it doesn't want it

That's not that obvious considering all the illegal settlements. I'm sure they want the land just not the people living there.

But yes, no clear solution especially considering that the only (non-Hamas) option for self government, the Palestinian Authority/Fatah is thoroughly incompetent and corrupt.

7. int_19h ◴[27 Jan 24 01:42 UTC] No.39151486{4}[source]▶
The people living on this land wasn't ever offered a credible "this is your land & we leave you alone on it" deal, though. No sovereign country would tolerate a complete blockade of its borders, yet that is seemingly what Israel expected from Palestinians when "giving" them Gaza.
replies(2): >>39151637 #>>39151644 #
8. YZF ◴[27 Jan 24 02:02 UTC] No.39151637{5}[source]▶
Gaza wasn't blockaded when it was handed to the Palestinians. Only later when Hamas came to power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

EDIT: Just want to add that the reality is more nuanced. Naturally Israel affects control over its border with Gaza and Egypt affected control over its border. Israel has definitely refused to let Gaza operate an airport or a sea port and so it maintained some amount of control together with Egypt. That said a lot of how this evolved was around choices made by Palestinians and the rise of Hamas led to the official blockade being imposed. I do think this was an opportunity for Palestinians to demonstrate how they can govern territory controlled by them and be peaceful neighbors which ofcourse did not happen.

9. JumpCrisscross ◴[27 Jan 24 02:03 UTC] No.39151644{5}[source]▶
> people living on this land wasn't ever offered a credible "this is your land & we leave you alone on it" deal, though

Nobody in the former Ottoman Empire did.

> No sovereign country would tolerate a complete blockade of its borders

Plenty of enclave countries exist. The blockade clamped shut when Hamas took power [1]. A coup, mind you, which overthrew Gaza’s fledgling (and flawed) democracy.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip