← Back to context

Comment by smoothjazz

1 year ago

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?

You are allowed under international law to lead war with significant amounts of civilian casualties. The issue being judged is claims of Israel committing a genocide. This is just a preliminary order while the full case is considered, and it might be bad PR to disregard it, but nothing else will come of it.

When hearing 'genocide', most people immediately jump to the Holocaust, but the definition used by the ICC and IL in general is far more permissible:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

A to E are horrible acts by themselves, but what makes a genocide is intent, and intent is very hard to prove. Personally, I think SA brought a very strong case forward, the genocidal tendencies of key Israeli decision makers and exeters are well published. In the US and Europe, the political class and general public just ignore the evidence currently, and a ruling of the ICC might help people 'wake up', but not much tangible consequences will result from it otherwise.

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-...

  • 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?

    • Any accusation of genocide will be for the relevant courts to decide. False pretexts (excuses) can be identified as such. The present court order is a shot across the bow. The court is explicitly saying that the intent of genocide appears plausible at this time, and explains the reasons for that assessment. Meaning that Israel will have to show with their actions if they want to turn it implausible.

    • 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.

    • I don't think it's really a loophole. For example, the Nazis could not possibly claim that the people they killed in death camps were merely collateral damage.

[flagged]

  • > They just asked Israel to try hard to minimize damage, which they already demonstrated they do.

    Where, other than with mere hand waving? How did they explain away blowing courts and universities with rigged explosives? Soldiers bragging about "occupation, expulsion, settlement, annexiation"? All the talk about how there are no civilians in Gaza? How many people who said that has Israel prosecuted so far?

    • You've been using HN primarily* to conduct political battle on this topic for a long time now. You've already taken to doing this again, repeatedly, in this thread.

      That's not in the intended spirit of what we want on HN, and especially not the spirit which I attempted to describe in my pinned comment at the top. Therefore, please stop.

      * In fact, it looks like you've been doing nothing but that. I've already explained to you repeatedly and at length why that's not ok on HN. If you keep it up, we're going to have to ban you. (And lest anyone worry: no, this has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with your views. You're plainly breaking both HN's rules and intended spirit, that is all.)

      1 reply →

[flagged]

  • Generally the proportion of civilians in a hospital vastly outweighs any fighters. Bombing a hospital does in no way count as reasonable steps to prevent collateral damage. Shooting people queueing for food aid similarly does not count.

  • I don't believe this and the court found reason to further investigate genocide. The statements from Israeli leadership alone contradict what you're saying.

  • Does killing over 25000 Palestinians in 3 months and starving the rest not involve deaths of Palestinians civilians?

    • Regarding starving, they are getting aid but Hamas steals it for their own us (fighters and black market), so it’s Hamas that starves the Palestinians, not Israel.

      The previous poster said the Palestinian dead are collateral while targeting Hamas terrorists. Not from direct action of Israel trying to kill uninvolved. He didn’t say there are no dead civilians. Any war has civilian casualties