32·
6 months agothe other judges all judged Israel was plausibly committing genocide
This statement is incorrect.
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf
Iceblade
- 40 Posts
- 47 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 15th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Indeed, the basis on which she dismissed the provisions is quite important. She highlights that one of the fundamental parts that according to the ICJ are necessary to constitute a genocide (intent) is not present. For all of you interested, her full opinion is available to read here. In short, she stated that because of the lack of intent there is no genocide in Gaza (as defined by the ICJ).
I will note that she hadn’t before this ruling been considered “pro-Israel”. Though it has historically been the opinion of some moderators in this community that statements like hers constitute “Pro-Israel propaganda”.
The relevant part from the genocide convention:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical…
Here are some excerpts from the opinion of judge Sebutinde:
… Some of the preconditions for the indication of provisional measures have not been met — South Africa has not demonstrated, even on a prima facie basis, that the acts allegedly committed by Israel and of which the Applicant complains, were committed with the necessary genocidal intent, and that as a result, they are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention — Similarly, since the acts allegedly committed by Israel were not accompanied by a genocidal intent, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the rights it asserts and for which it seeks protection through the indication of provisional measures are plausible under the Genocide Convention — The provisional measures indicated by the Court in this Order are not warranted.
Later in the document there are more detailed explanations, but I will spoiler them to avoid a huge wall of text:
spoiler
A. There are no indicators of a genocidal intent on the part of Israel
…
What distinguishes the crime of genocide from other grave violations of international human rights law (including those enumerated in Article II, paragraphs (a) to (d), of the Genocide Convention) is the existence of the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Accordingly, the acts complained of by South Africa, as well as the rights correlated to those acts, can only be capable of “falling within the scope of the said Convention” if a genocidal intent is present, otherwise such acts simply constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law and not genocide as such.
…
-
… Having examined the evidence put forward by each of the Parties, I am not convinced that a prima facie showing of a genocidal intent, by way of indicators, has been made out against Israel. The war was not started by Israel but rather by Hamas who attacked Israel on 7 October 2023 thereby sparking off the military operation in Israel’s defence and in a bid to rescue its hostages. I also must agree that any “genocidal intent” alleged by the Applicant is negated by (1) Israel’s restricted and targeted attacks of legitimate military targets in Gaza; (2) its mitigation of civilian harm by warning them through leaflets, radio messages and telephone calls of impending attacks; and (3) its facilitation of humanitarian assistance. A careful examination of Israel’s war policy and of the full statements of the responsible government officials further demonstrates the absence of a genocidal intent. Here I must hasten to add that Israel is expected to conduct its military operation in accordance with international humanitarian law but violations of IHL cannot be the subject of these proceedings which are purely pursuant to the Genocide Convention. Unfortunately, the scale of suffering and death experienced in Gaza is exacerbated not by genocidal intent, but rather by several factors, including the tactics of the Hamas organization itself which often entails its forces embedding amongst the civilian population and installations, rendering them vulnerable to legitimate military attack.
-
Regarding the statements of Israeli top officials and politicians that South Africa cited as containing genocidal rhetoric, a careful examination of those statements, read in their proper and full context, shows that South Africa has either placed the quotations out of context or simply misunderstood the statements of those officials. The vast majority of the statements referred to the destruction of Hamas and not the Palestinian people as such. Certain renegade statements by officials who are not charged with prosecuting Israel’s military operations were subsequently highly criticized by the Israeli Government itself. More importantly, the official war policy of the Israeli Government, as presented to the Court, contains no indicators of a genocidal intent. In my assessment, there are also no indicators of incitement to commit genocide.
-
In sum, I am not convinced that the acts complained of by the Applicant are capable of falling within the scope of the Genocide Convention, in particular because it has not been shown, even on a prima facie basis, that Israel’s conduct in Gaza is accompanied by the necessary genocidal intent…
Previous moderation has indicated that discussion of this topic is ban-worthy in this community. As such I will not be responding to any comments unless a moderator in this community actively says otherwise. Those interested in a civil discussion can however send me a DM instead, as I find the topic important and worthy of discussion.
-
Yeah I don’t expect Kim’d let anybody leave NK that isn’t either fanatically loyal or under their thumb somehow even whilst abroad.
Even if the claims are true, which from what I’ve read there isn’t much evidence at all
There is plenty of evidence, but maybe you need a refresher.
Archival link (haaretz): https://archive.is/sRK4M
Warning, graphical content: https://www.7thofoctober.com/
Denying the events of October 7th is comparable to denying the events of 9/11. Both terrible events, which traumatized an entire people and caused wars where a much greater number of people got hurt and died. Yet, attempting to deny or trivialize the origin event is a surefire way to make those affected by it not listen to another word of what you’re trying to get across.
It has been presented, innumerous times, but maybe you need a refresher.
Archival link (haaretz): https://archive.is/sRK4M
Warning, graphical content: https://www.7thofoctober.com/
23·6 months agoSo… you’re essentially carrying around a power bank on the back of your phone all the time? Seems like a gimmick at best.
Honestly, fast charging has turned this into such a non-issue that you’ll be hard pressed to find a more convenient solution.
2·6 months agoSometimes our emotional batteries run low and we feel like mouthing off (like this guy is doing) instead of being sympathetic. Most people don’t, but we can have a bit of a laugh relating to feeling like depicted in the comic. This helps us let out some of our negative emotions without anybody having to put up with them which in turn allows helps us to keep being emotionally supportive to those we care about.
Ah yes. Worried it might’ve been something else. Even being at war, Israel does rather well when it comes to press freedom. There are a wide variety of perspectives.
Would you care to enlighten me regarding the credibility of Ynet? Been coming back to them on & off for many years and they always seem to have well written articles. MBFC also ranks them highly.
Article is paywalled.
Well, alz & other forms of dementia are directly related to atrophy of gray matter in the brain. The general idea of rejuvination by adding progenitor (stem) cells which have fresh telomerase (enzyme that replenishes telomeres, the reason stem cells can keep replicating longer than other cells) in the brain is that they could develop new nerve cells. On a rather basic theoretical level that should also help with basic brain aging. I’m no neurologist though and haven’t been keeping up with the topic lately.
I think they’ve explored using it as a countermeasure for alzhiemers, but don’t recall how effective it was. In any case, that particular avenue isn’t likely to get significant traction currently in the west. Legally dubious and way too expensive for any of us mere mortals to afford.
With current tech, I think it is semi-possible but has potential ethical problems. There have been studies witth moderately promising results but all rather limited in scope. (This is from what I know when I studied medicine, may be somewhat outdated by now)
What you need is to have either have stem cells preserved since infancy or use stem cells from early embryos. These can be combined with dna from the patient and then reintroduced to revitalize organs reaching the end of their telomeric lifespan.
Afaik the main issue here is that the prior option requires cryogenically preserved stem cells (which basically none of our elders today have) or harvesting stem cells from human embryos (which is prohibited in western healthcare). Aside from that there’s also an increased cancer risk.
Regardless of the merits of tariffs and protectionism, it is IMO quite necessary that these kinds of companies, that churn out cheap garbage with no regard for pollution be punitively targeted. Not only does it ruin our planet, but it also undermines those businesses who actually try to produce decent products.
Ideally big corps that simply import and resell these types of products (either through willful ignorance or malicious intent) shouldn’t get away either, and need to be held accountable.
47·6 months agoSo you met someone who was shitty about consent, and decided to also be shitty about consent?
Wow!
Of all the people to be angry at for being wealthy…
Guy grew up in one of the most downtrodden areas of Sweden, single parent household and founded the single largest music service in the world.
Yeah, that deserves more pay than any one musician ever is worth.
Oh, and he pays taxes, in Sweden. Our taxes are insane.
Sure, it’s debatable whether any one person should be that rich. Sure, he could probably do more for the artists. Sure, there’s probably other stuff he messes up too.
However, the main problem is likely the record labels who own the majority of the shares after essentially forcing the founders to give up the company they built. Especially considering that he worked at µTorrent before going off to do Spotify, and was inspired by napster - the idea that music should be free and available to everyone.
Yeah, religious extremists and regressives of all sorts tend to these sorts of horrors. Thankfully, the civilized world has become a lot more secular in the past centuries.
Even so here are still hundreds of millions of people living under governments with religious laws that enforce, enable and perpetrate these kinds of atrocities.
Euthanasia for humans is a difficult ethical dilemma. On the one hand, being allowed to die seems like a rather fundamental personal autonomy, on the other, it risks producing some very perverse economic incentives in both healthcare and society.
Nova Scotia cancer patient who said she was asked if she was aware of assisted dying as an option twice as she underwent mastectomy surgeries.
The question “came up in completely inappropriate places”, she told the National Post.
Canadian news outlets have also reported on cases where people with disabilities have considered assisted dying due to lack of housing or disability benefits.
The incentives, specifically, involve a slippery slope where it becomes more acceptable for society in general to push somebody considered a “burden” towards assisted dying as a way of getting rid of them. Terminally ill, elderly, disabled, mentally ill, unemployed etc. people may find the institutions that support them slowly become dismantled with society then proceeding to offer assisted dying as a “solution” when existence as a consequence becomes more and more miserable.
This might be a tad cynical, but I consider the risk of this ultimate betrayal of the most vulnerable in society as a consequence of legalized euthanasia so large that it outweighs the potential moral benefits.
I think you are highly oversimplifying the situation.
The rapid fall of the Assad regime means the end of the Syrian civil war, which is a good thing. Syria has been plagued by war for more than a decade now, perhaps some peace will finally settle and the millions of Syrian refugees will finally return to their homes. As for what happens after, it remains to be seen. The rebels are no monolith, they contain everything from Turkish backed mercenaries, jihadists to mostly secular Syrian anti-Assad nationalists.
Those who simply assume that the rebels are wholly “good” are no doubt naive, but there is certainly hope that the more reasonable elements of the movement will prevail and institute a more free society, perhaps by cooperating with the Kurdish autonomous zone in the east. If that happens however, or something else like a taliban-esque islamist theocratic tyranny is instituted instead remains to be seen.
I would be positively shocked if this gained traction. Many islamic countries seem to be limiting rather than extending womens and girls rights at the moment.