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

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

It's generally pretty obvious why it's being used when you examine the overall attitudes of the people who are using it.

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.

If you all read the rest of that tweet that xyzzz posted, you will find a Hasbara-addled woman who believes everything Israeli propaganda says and is an obvious Islamophobe. She is concern trolling and a fascist.

It's generally pretty obvious why it's being used when you examine the overall attitudes of the people who are using it.

I can agree with that. What I'm less convinced by is the idea that anyone that mentions the hostages is in the same camp, up to 100% of the time.

Hostages are important and they seem to have been forgotten as Israel racks up the daily death and destruction (over 100 deaths a day is what I see), as have the thousands of Palestinians in Israeli jails.

So I think a call for a ceasefire is pretty much the priority, statement-wise. All else follows.

If you all read the rest of that tweet that xyzzz posted, you will find a Hasbara-addled woman who believes everything Israeli propaganda says and is an obvious Islamophobe. She is concern trolling and a fascist.

I want the release of the hostages too, fwiw— I agree with anvil in this way. If the message is “we must have a ceasefire, a release of hostage taken by Hamas, and a release of prisoners taken by Israel since 10/7,” then let’s go.

But if the response to call for ceasefire and a plea to avoid humanitarian catastrophe is “what about the hostages” then that is an obvious concern troll, and I stand by my characterization

To be clear here, I don't think anyone should be required to say anything about the hostages, any more than they should be asked to condemn Hamas, or to say anything at all

but if they do say something about releasing the hostages, or they do condemn Hamas, I think there's nothing wrong with that whatsoever,

yeah sorry didn’t mean to put words in yr mouth there, anvil

all good!

"I don’t read any of the tweets xyzzzz__ posts"

Yet you complain about them? Normal.

Nah I’m really just referring to not reading anything outside the preview. I’m not going digging into tweets that are posted unless I recognise the account.

Fair enough

I want the release of the hostages too, fwiw— I agree with anvil in this way. If the message is “we must have a ceasefire, a release of hostage taken by Hamas, and a release of prisoners taken by Israel since 10/7,” then let’s go.

This is what I'm arguing for. It pre-empts the concern trolling in tweets like the one posted at no cost to the cause. Seems like a no brainer to me.

I haven't found an issue with that myself. The empathy gap is your problem, not other people’s.

Gyac you've not heard concern for the hostages being used as an argument for supporting Israeli strikes on Gaza?? This surprises me. I certainly have, it is a disingenous argument but it is a talking point.

Yeah, no, when I mentioned the empathy gap, that’s what I meant. I don’t have an issue feeling sympathetic towards the hostages and their suffering just because their government are cunts.

Seriously fellas. You absolutely don’t have to pretend that the hostage situation is the biggest source of human suffering in this conflict and repeat Kahanist talking points, but they are civilians who didn’t do anything to be separated from their families for three months. Sure there’s some concern trolling over them, by people doing nothing to ameliorate their suffering - or any suffering - but like…they are in a shit situation through no fault of their own. I mean I guess you can throw a tantrum every time they’re mentioned, or you can move on.

But what provoked this discussion wasn't people throwing a tantrum because hostages were mentioned, it's the reverse?

And again, I do think it would've been both morally correct and productive to include mention of the hostages. I find the weaponization of their plight sickening and don't see why we should accept its binary. But I also don't think pointing out this weaponizing as milo did attests to any kind of empathy gap.