Israel/Palestine post 10/7 - follow-on events/thoughts as relate to other countries

https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1c/k1c10lsjoq
is today's proceedings from the UN website.

Is giving a testimony riddled with lies automatically perjury?

Basically saying because the ICJ did not punish Serbia for the genocide in Bosnia, they should absolve Israel too.

Important to note that there has never been a genocide ruled by the ICJ and the closest we came to it was the Serbia’s conviction of failure to prevent genocide.

— Arnesa Buljušmić-Kustura (@Rrrrnessa) January 12, 2024

Trying to unpack that statement "there has never been a genocide ruled by the ICJ". I wonder if she is saying that the ICJ ruled that Serbia had not committed genocide, and maybe that the ICJ has not found any other country to have committed genocide?

The ICJ found that the Srebrenica massacre was a genocide. And that Serbia failed to prevent genocide, violated the Genocide Convention by failing to transfer Ratko Mladić to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and failed to comply with provisional measures.

Apparently the Netherlands were held by the Dutch Supreme Court also to have been partially responsible for the Srebrenica massacre, but apparently that was not in the ICJ. (A bit confusing to search for as both seem to be referred to shorthand as "the Hague")

The shorthand of the Hague is very confusing especially given how distinct the legal powers of both courts are

Yeah it is, I’ve always called it “The Hague” but it’s not very specific. The court itself hasn’t been established very long, the main proceeding a lot of people (including me!) think of first and have probably seen the most coverage of is this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

but that was an ad hoc proceeding not run by the ICJ? The person tweeting that is Bosnian, so likely she is referring to that discrepancy.

The German federal govt releases a statement saying the genocide accusation against Israel has "no basis whatsoever" and that it intends to intervene as a third party in the ICJ hearing.

No reference to Palestinians, just "Israel's operation in Gaza."https://t.co/pTDvcZlsrH

— Ruairí Casey (@Ruairi_Casey) January 12, 2024

Genocide experts on the case

I think of the Hague as meaning more the ICC because I tend to think of 'the Hague' as referring to bringing war criminals to trial (as in when people say X should be extradited to the Hague) and explicitly to do with humanitarian law unlike the icj. Despite the icj being the far more long standing court I think most people tend to hold this association as primary.

I only managed to watch Shaw today and found some of the submission to be almost surreally unconvincing, but winning legal arguments often have similar casuistic inversions so I would be interested in the views of someone with expertise to explain why he continually sought to assert that hammas are guilty of genocide in the context that genocide is so highly specific it can very rarely be applied and to do so undermines it's singular place within humanitarian law. I wondered if this was because the argument otherwise suggested that existing case law meant that article one could never be enforced but that is very idle speculation.

Sorry I wrote on my phone which apparently doesn't allow punctuation or separate sentences

Of the ICJ's 192 cases, there have been 4 main groups of cases in the ICJ under the Genocide Convention so far.

Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (and later Croatia v. Serbia) were the first genocide cases brought there. Gambia v. Myanmar (Rohingya), Ukraine v. Russia and South Africa v. Israel are ongoing.

Since the Serbia genocide cases are the only ones that have reached conclusion, that is probably what she means.

I understood that and agree with you that 'the Hague' as a descriptor is unhelpful because it could potentially refer to either and some people may have arbitrary reasons for assuming it refers to one in cases where it means to refer to the other. It's also very funny how news sites explainer type pages all become aware of the same ambiguities in their reporting in unison.

Oh yeah, that makes sense.

I don’t expect anything from this trial but this was good to see stated.

LIVE UPDATES: Israeli deputy AG says statements from far-right figures calling for intentional civilian harm in Gaza contradict Israeli policy, amount to a criminal offensehttps://t.co/OusEhfFEeV

— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) January 12, 2024

I only managed to watch Shaw today and found some of the submission to be almost surreally unconvincing, but winning legal arguments often have similar casuistic inversions so I would be interested in the views of someone with expertise to explain why he continually sought to assert that hammas are guilty of genocide in the context that genocide is so highly specific it can very rarely be applied and to do so undermines it's singular place within humanitarian law. I wondered if this was because the argument otherwise suggested that existing case law meant that article one could never be enforced but that is very idle speculation.

― plax (ico), Friday, January 12, 2024 9:06 AM bookmarkflaglink

I watched part of the opening statement, Malcolm Shaw and the next 3 or 4 counsel that followed him. Admittedly I haven't read Israel's written submission and I'm not suggesting I have expertise.

This in in the framework of a legal case that seeks both a legal finding of genocide and remedies - provisional remedies to prevent genocide, as well as punishment of genocide.

Like a lot of legal strategies, it can be doing multiple things at once. My interpretation of that specific aspect of Shaw's presentation you're asking about was to emphasize that "genocide" under the Convention is a term of legal art with a very specific intent, and to contrast Hamas' 10/7 attack and stated mission to destroy Israel with Israel's stated intention to separate civilian from military targets.

they found thousands of unmarked graves for indigenous children near residential schools all over canada btw. like 2 years ago. https://t.co/yknDfbgFgy

— سماح | 🧚🏾‍♀️support palestinians (@samah_fadil) January 13, 2024

[a long post edited down to a single observation]: there is no correlation between Trudeau’s denial of SA’s case for genocide in Gaza and the genocide of Indigenous people in Canada. It’s a pithy little QT but it’s not-correct; Trudeau’s head-in-the-sand re Gaza is indicative of something present-tense and darker than “this PM has a history of ignoring genocides”

I would be interested in the views of someone with expertise to explain why he continually sought to assert that hammas are guilty of genocide in the context that genocide is so highly specific it can very rarely be applied and to do so undermines it's singular place within humanitarian law.

There’s a pretty convincing argument that genocide, as intended by the definition, is more common than people generally acknowledge but, that aside, it has typically been interpreted in a fairly narrow way. Going into a refugee camp and killing everyone because they’re Palestinian would likely be considered genocide. Going into a refugee camp and killing everyone because you have decided they might be Hamas supporters would not. Killing everyone with the aim of forcing people in all the other camps, and towns / cities, to flee to Egypt so you can expand your settlements into their land wouldn’t either. Neither would killing everyone because you have decided they might pose a threat in the future, even if they aren’t now. These are all crimes against humanity and grievous, prosecutable violations of international law, but they’re not considered genocidal acts. I would guess Shaw’s argument is that Hamas kills Israelis because they’re Israelis.

Yet there is the continual denial that Israelis kill Palestinians because they are Palestinians, a denial which is totally contradicted by objective facts

(nor’t arguing with you obv, just stating a salient point)

many people would disagree with that statement. I myself am ambivalent about it. I think there is a lot of prejudicial hate that flows both ways.

The report seems to pretty much present things as I have though, which is that, if you say a bunch of things that sound genocidal and then your army kills a lot of people, it's not exactly a leap to read genocidal intent into it whether or not the numbers reach genocidal proportions. There's no "but October 7 was really extra bad" exception where you no longer have a responsibility to refrain from that. So even if the ultimate goal wasn't really truly genocide, it's hard to take Israel's complaints about the action against it seriously. And the statements of leaders (including Bibi and Gallant, not only the more "fringe" people like Smotrich and Ben Gvir) are going to have a strong impact on how the army fights the war, in a situation where tensions and anger are already going to be extra high. The last thing soliders need to hear in that situation is "the restraints are off."

Namibia telling Germany to fuck off.

Namibia rejects Germany’s Support of the Genocidal Intent of the Racist Israeli State against Innocent Civilians in Gaza

On Namibian soil, #Germany committed the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904-1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most… pic.twitter.com/ZxwWxLv8yt

— Namibian Presidency (@NamPresidency) January 13, 2024

[a long post edited down to a single observation]: there is no correlation between Trudeau’s denial of SA’s case for genocide in Gaza and the genocide of Indigenous people in Canada. It’s a pithy little QT but it’s not-correct; Trudeau’s head-in-the-sand re Gaza is indicative of something present-tense and darker than “this PM has a history of ignoring genocides”

― remember how much your mother loves you (flamboyant goon tie included), Saturday, 13 January 2024 bookmarkflaglink

I took it as an observation. The West isn't wired to support Palestinians, partly because how they treat minorities and how they became the state they are (in this case Canada).

. These are all crimes against humanity and grievous, prosecutable violations of international law, but they’re not considered genocidal acts. I would guess Shaw’s argument is that Hamas kills Israelis because they’re Israelis.

― ShariVari, Saturday, 13 January 2024 20:04 (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Thank you for this. I'm still confused by his use however for two reasons.

One is rhetorical. If genocide is as singular and specific as he claimed, and this was key to his refutation of SA's claim, this seemed unnecessarily undermined by pouncing on October 7th as an example. Surely better to say it didn't apply in any case here?

Second was somewhat related. Genocide was, in his submission, distinguished by it's severity but also as singularly evil - the apex of crimes against humanity. These seemed at odds, why introduce the second when it seemed to undermine the first?

Third was a point of law. Shaw's definition (afaict also backed up by ICJ case law) hinged on 'intent' which made a clear connection between official government policy and soldiers' actions. But if Israel doesn't recognise Palestine as a state, then within that how can the actions of Hamas constitute the requisite relationship between state policy and committed violence?

'a point of law' lol I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm just trying to get a grip

I think a lot of it can be explained by legal grandstanding but genocidal acts aren’t really marked by their severity or scale, rather their specific definition in law. Russian troops going door to door in a small town and shooting anyone who said they are Ukrainian is a potentially genocidal act. Indonesia killing 1m socialists isn’t, at least as far as I understand it.

Genocide also doesn’t have to be committed by a state actor. ISIS is widely accused of perpetrating genocide against the Yazidi, for example. For Israel to be found directly guilty of genocide, there would have to be state intent- which is not to say that Israeli commanders or IDF units couldn’t be found guilty and Israel culpable for not stopping them (as with Srebrenica).

Obvs don’t take any of this as gospel. I did a law degree twenty years ago.

Sorry my second point was mangled, I meant to say that it was defined by it's specificity but this seemed undermined by his simultaneous emphasis on it's unique severity (which afaict is not legally true, as in your post)

Third was a point of law. Shaw's definition (afaict also backed up by ICJ case law) hinged on 'intent' which made a clear connection between official government policy and soldiers' actions. But if Israel doesn't recognise Palestine as a state, then within that how can the actions of Hamas constitute the requisite relationship between state policy and committed violence?

― plax (ico), Saturday, January 13, 2024 6:33 PM (fifty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I don't think genocide itself definitionally requires a state actor, it's just that Hamas can't be brought before the ICJ, particularly as it isn't a signatory to the relevant convention. There's no question Hamas is a government and it was official government policy to kill as many Israelis as possible. I also don't see the relevance of whether Israel "recognizes" Palestine as a state -- the fact that some countries don't recognize Israel has no bearing either.

A verbatim transcript of Israel's entire presentation is here, including Shaw's presentation:

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240112-ora-01-00-bi.pdf

It's searchable for terms like "Hamas" so if there was a particular set of remarks you could quote paste them for discussion.

I'm interpreting plax's reference to "crime of crimes" to perhaps refer to this passage from Shaw's remarks:

7. Such rules cover permitted activities under international humanitarian law, where civilian
damage and loss - always to be regretted - are caused in the legitimate pursuit of military
objectives through to the violations of the law, being grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and
up to war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the only category before this Court is
genocide. Not every conflict is genocidal. The crime of genocide in international law, and under the
Genocide Convention and international law, is a uniquely malicious manifestation. It stands alone
amongst the violations of international law as the epitome and zenith of evil. It has been described
correctly as the “crime of crimes”, the ultimate in wickedness.
8. Indeed, the Court itself emphasized in its Order of 2 June 1999 that the threat or use of force
cannot in itself constitute an act of genocide within the meaning of Article II of the Genocide
Convention, and particularly instanced bombings as lacking the element of intent in the
circumstances.
9. To put it another way, if claims of genocide were to become the common currency of armed
conflict, whenever and wherever that occurred, the essence of this crime would be diluted and lost.

If that's on the right track, I will try to answer what I think you are asking.

Thank you for this. I'm still confused by his use however for two reasons.

One is rhetorical. If genocide is as singular and specific as he claimed, and this was key to his refutation of SA's claim, this seemed unnecessarily undermined by pouncing on October 7th as an example. Surely better to say it didn't apply in any case here?

Second was somewhat related. Genocide was, in his submission, distinguished by it's severity but also as singularly evil - the apex of crimes against humanity. These seemed at odds, why introduce the second when it seemed to undermine the first?

The legal definition of "Genocide" in this court is not a subset of "crimes against humanity." Genocide is actually a category worse than "crimes against humanity." Genocide is something that its drafters considered so evil and so morally depraved that it required an entirely new definition.

I think you may be importing the idea of "singularity" into the scale of legal definitions. I don't believe Shaw mentioned singularity as a characteristic of genocide. He mentioned that the state of Israel is "singularly aware" of why the Genocide Convention was adopted.

So, tying this to what I think you're asking, singularity is not part of the definition of "Genocide," and genocide is not defined by its rarity or uniqueness or even the number of deaths. If it were, then yes, mentioning 10/7 might well undermine Shaw's point to suggest that genocide is more common than not.

Third was a point of law. Shaw's definition (afaict also backed up by ICJ case law) hinged on 'intent' which made a clear connection between official government policy and soldiers' actions. But if Israel doesn't recognise Palestine as a state, then within that how can the actions of Hamas constitute the requisite relationship between state policy and committed violence?

I think your third point involves the very tricky legal concept of the principal-agent relationship. A state, like a corporation, must act through natural persons. When a person's stated intent represents the official policy of the state of Israel will be an issue in the ICJ case. However it's not Israel that is trying to prove that Hamas is guilty of genocide in the ICJ, so Israel has not undertaken the burden of proof to show that Hamas represents the official state policy of Gaza.

btw, Palestine is a party to a pending ICJ proceeding against the US for moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

There's no question Hamas is a government and it was official government policy to kill as many Israelis as possible. I also don't see the relevance of whether Israel "recognizes" Palestine as a state -- the fact that some countries don't recognize Israel has no bearing either.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Sunday, 14 January 2024 bookmarkflaglink

Palestine is not a state so I don't see Hamas as a government. It doesn't face a normal cycle of elections.

Israel doesn't act like a state either. Certainly not like other Western-style democracies would.

pic.twitter.com/R8lQolHQ7T

— Jake Romm (@jake_romm) January 13, 2024

More cynically, the drafters specifically excluded things that they themselves were doing, including the mass killing of political opponents, ethnic cleaning/ deportations, the use or potential use of nuclear weapons, cultural destruction, etc.The legal definition means Israel can probably deny that a Palestinian people exists, deliberately destroy their educational structures and cultural heritage and kill countless civilians with a stated aim of scattering the rest to the winds and not be liable for genocide specifically. That’s very much a result of how the purpose of the convention was hollowed out in order to get agreement between the Soviet Union, US and U.K, who all had their own reasons for wanting it limited.

Palestine is not a state so I don't see Hamas as a government. It doesn't face a normal cycle of elections.

I don't think elections are what defines a state - plenty of dictatorships are states, for example. It's whether Hamas has the power to control the territory it nominally governs over that defines whether it is a government or not, at the risk of tautology.

Many dictatorships are able to hold ballots and make it look like there is a process in the first place. Palestine can't even do that.

Palestine was able to hold elections in Gaza in 2006, and more recently in the West Bank

I know

More cynically, the drafters specifically excluded things that they themselves were doing, including the mass killing of political opponents, ethnic cleaning/ deportations, the use or potential use of nuclear weapons, cultural destruction, etc.The legal definition means Israel can probably deny that a Palestinian people exists, deliberately destroy their educational structures and cultural heritage and kill countless civilians with a stated aim of scattering the rest to the winds and not be liable for genocide specifically. That’s very much a result of how the purpose of the convention was hollowed out in order to get agreement between the Soviet Union, US and U.K, who all had their own reasons for wanting it limited.

Yes I did see that link crüt dumped without context.

sorry for this - I know it can be annoying when people do this, though I'm not sure what context or expert analysis I'm supposed to provide for a Reuters article. I'd like to think it's not the same as an unsourced tweet.

I mean dumping a link where the url is like Hamas-bad-evil-refuse-ceasefire in the middle of a discussion where numerous people were discussing civilian casualties says something. Like, everyone knows Hamas is bad. What does it have to do with civilian casualties? If you wish for it not to seem to say that, then perhaps consider quoting any relevant points or adding your own commentary. I did make that point in my reply to felicity but you didn’t seem to have acknowledged it.

OK, my commentary is that I think the situation is horrible and the people of Gaza don't deserve to suffer these atrocities. I am not an analyst or commentator on international affairs. I posted the link to the thread over 24 hours after discussion had stopped. I acknowledge I am not always the best at reading the room and I apologize for posting something in poor taste.

A Daily Express reporter went undercover and sent info to the pigs

BREAKING: Several actionists were arrested for allegedly conspiring to shut down the London Stock Exchange, who raise billions of pounds for apartheid Israel.

They were infiltrated by an undercover journalist, but the campaign to end Israel's weapons trade remains undeterred!

— Palestine Action (@Pal_action) January 14, 2024

Great piece on denial in the LRB:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n02/conor-gearty/short-cuts

In States of Denial, Cohen was highly critical of the way liberal culture had accommodated Israel’s actions. He discussed three versions of denial: literal denial (it never happened); interpretative denial (it’s not what you think it is) and implicatory denial (we have to do it/it’s terrible, but it’s not our fault). It’s much harder for the Israeli authorities to pull off literal denial than it was before the existence of social media, though it lingers on in their dismissal of the dangers facing the population of Gaza (we are creating safe spaces for the innocent; they should go to the south) and of the severity of conditions there (there is enough food and water; there would be a plentiful supply of fuel if Hamas stopped hoarding it). But the essential facts can hardly be denied: more than 23,000 deaths, around 1 per cent of the population; the destruction of a third of the buildings in the territory; attacks on schools, universities, hospitals and cultural centres; and the forced movement of 1.9 million people.

Instead, and in a move not anticipated by Cohen but which the sociologist in him might have admired, Israel and its supporters have flipped the need for denial to the other side: instead of Israel attempting to show that the atrocities it is committing in Gaza are not in fact taking place, the Palestinians and their supporters find themselves having to prove to the world that things that did not happen actually did not happen − or not in the way Israel says they did. Disproving fabrications is an exhausting business, usefully so from Israel’s point of view. Refutation takes time and often comes too late to undermine what have become entrenched truths.

….

How do we square all these efforts at denial with the celebration by many in Israel at the death and destruction being visited on the population of Gaza, the pressure for the same kind of action to be taken in the West Bank, and the proud circulation by Israeli troops of selfies and videos from the scene to show to their families and friends? Describing the Palestinians as vermin to be removed or killed is hardly the language of denial, but many Israelis combine celebration with a denial that what’s happening is their fault. Denial in Israel is a means of keeping supporters abroad on message. We in the Global North need lies so that we can continue to see our support for Israeli action as morally possible.

To steelman that argument a bit as it pertains to the ICJ genocide proceeding, I think that's the importance of provisional relief against the destruction of evidence that would prove genocide.

Letter from the BMA to government calling for a ceasefire and establishment of a humanitarian corridor. Some (like the professional I link to) are talking about the no hostage mention, though they also neglect to mention the thousands of Palestinians in jails + "NO mention that virtually every hospital, every school, every mosque in Gaza has been shown to be a base for weapons & attacks" is telling.

Ashamed to be a member of @TheBMA after all these years. This letter is as far from a statement of neutrality as can be imagined

NO mention of #hostages which include children and women who have been held for over 100 days without any access to @ICRC

NO mention of the… https://t.co/BZEGC64Ivo

— Prof Liz Lightstone PhD FRCP FISN 🇬🇧🇮🇱🇺🇦💙💜 (@kidneydoc101) January 15, 2024

Given the scale of death and destruction in Gaza, continued concern "what about the hostages" concern trolling remains utterly vile.

I mean it is a fucking awful situation for them and their families. It’s been three months. The hostage families have been harshly criticising of the government for continuing the war specifically because it puts their families at risk. So…?

critical*

Yes, I think including a line about the hostages makes perfect sense, doesn't distract from the destruction in Gaza in any meaningful way and it's pretty messed up that it mostly exists in the public discourse as something for the Israeli govt to crow about, especially when as gyac states it's not like the hostage's families are onboard with the govt's program.

Obv tweets from ppl like the one above are to be disregarded but that doesn't invalidate the point.

I'm sure it's a terrible situation for those families but these issues are always used as sticks with which to beat people objecting to imperialism, war and death. In a statement condemning active genocide in Gaza, there is zero need to establish any bona fides by referring to hostages, rockets launched at Israel at any point, the right of Israel to exist, etc..

Object to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? "Oh, I don't see you condemning 9/11/Saddam's reign of terror/etc.."
Object to genocide in Gaza? "Oh, I don't see you condemning Hamas..."
Object to saber rattling with China? "Oh, I don't see you condemning the treatment of Uighur Muslims..."
Object to US fomenting coups in Latin America? "Oh, I don't see you condemning Castro/Chavez/Maduro..."

100% of the time it is concern trolling.

The focus on care, that Palestinians can't access it is fine enough for a Medical British org appealling to their own government, which happens to be taking part in military action in the middle east.

Object to genocide in Gaza? "Oh, I don't see you condemning Hamas..."

Object to saber rattling with China? "Oh, I don't see you condemning the treatment of Uighur Muslims...".

But in this instance isn't the statement including both? I understand the idea its not necessarily appropriate to mention the hostages when criticising Israel, but is it bad if someone does? Like if a person objects to sabre rattling with China AND the treatment of Uighur Muslims, is that bad? Not saying they should be required to do so in order to criticise sabre rattling, but if they choose to I don't see why thats bad, it is part of the picture too I think