International Politics

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Looother said:

 

I fear you are pointlessly attempting to engage a bigot in reasoned debate.

The prejudiced only see what they want to see to confirm their prejudices.

[Skip997]

3 hours ago, Looother said:

 

I fear you are pointlessly attempting to engage a bigot in reasoned debate.

The blind leading the blind 

[steviewevie]

which goes to show the whole use of genocide just becomes subjective so ultimately pointless.

[Looother]

7 hours ago, steviewevie said:

which goes to show the whole use of genocide just becomes subjective so ultimately pointless.

Which was the entire point of what has been a deliberate campaign to redefine and enfeeble the word. Genocide is and should be anything but a meaningless term, but it has been made, as you say, so "subjective it's ultimately pointless" by people with no respect for the word or its history throwing it around at anything they don't like very much. 

[steviewevie]

22 minutes ago, Looother said:

Which was the entire point of what has been a deliberate campaign to redefine and enfeeble the word. Genocide is and should be anything but a meaningless term, but it has been made, as you say, so "subjective it's ultimately pointless" by people with no respect for the word or its history throwing it around at anything they don't like very much. 

ok...but when you have what seems to be indiscriminate bombing of people and infrastructure including hospitals and shelters, the bombing and burning of refugee camps, the cutting off of essential supplies, and then people in Israeli govt justifying this by saying they are fighting human animals or the president saying an entire nation is responsible or Netanyahu referencing Amalek then you can see why people might at the least say Israel is committing genocidal acts even if not full genocides.

The problem is the definition is open to interpretation, not all genocides are the same, there of course have been many genocides throughout history including those committed by us, it is loaded against Israel because of how the term came to be defined originally, and the hardest part of any case is to prove intent...which is why sometimes maybe just easier to stick with war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Also, even if ICJ found Israel guilty of genocide, what then? A fine? Arrest the government? The main thing is finding a conclusion.

[Looother]

21 hours ago, steviewevie said:

ok...but when you have what seems to be indiscriminate bombing of people and infrastructure including hospitals and shelters, the bombing and burning of refugee camps, the cutting off of essential supplies, and then people in Israeli govt justifying this by saying they are fighting human animals or the president saying an entire nation is responsible or Netanyahu referencing Amalek then you can see why people might at the least say Israel is committing genocidal acts even if not full genocides.

The problem is the definition is open to interpretation, not all genocides are the same, there of course have been many genocides throughout history including those committed by us, it is loaded against Israel because of how the term came to be defined originally, and the hardest part of any case is to prove intent...which is why sometimes maybe just easier to stick with war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Also, even if ICJ found Israel guilty of genocide, what then? A fine? Arrest the government? The main thing is finding a conclusion.

 

Certainly the definition used by the UN, specifically the phrase "in whole or in part", allows people to throw it around too liberally. On Netanyahu referencing Amalek, I'd recommend this article in the Atlantic, published last January - his reference was clearly misinterpreted (he was referring to a section of Deuteronomy, while the mention of Amalek that would be problematic is from the book of Samuel, obviously a completely different part of the bible). He's said and done loads of awful things in his time, but that particular one is not among them. Obviously his government does, shamefully, contain Jewish supremacists who would clearly love to push the Palestinians out of the area completely, but their influence in Gaza appears to be minimal (their influence in the West Bank is much greater, with disastrous results).

 

 

[steviewevie]

50 minutes ago, Looother said:

 

Certainly the definition used by the UN, specifically the phrase "in whole or in part", allows people to throw it around too liberally. On Netanyahu referencing Amalek, I'd recommend this article in the Atlantic, published last January - his reference was clearly misinterpreted (he was referring to a section of Deuteronomy, while the mention of Amalek that would be problematic is from the book of Samuel, obviously a completely different part of the bible). He's said and done loads of awful things in his time, but that particular one is not among them. Obviously his government does, shamefully, contain Jewish supremacists who would clearly love to push the Palestinians out of the area completely, but their influence in Gaza appears to be minimal (their influence in the West Bank is much greater, with disastrous results).

 

 

The definition used by the UN is the definition...as coined by Raphael Lemkin.

[lazyred]

18 hours ago, steviewevie said:

The definition used by the UN is the definition...as coined by Raphael Lemkin.

 

Ireland want to amend the definition so it can be applied to Israel. This means they know the current definition doesn't apply.

https://news.sky.com/story/icj-asked-to-broaden-definition-of-genocide-over-collective-punishment-in-gaza-13271874

 

[Looother]

19 hours ago, steviewevie said:

The definition used by the UN is the definition...as coined by Raphael Lemkin.

 

I'm not arguing with its history or impugning its intention. It just has an inherent weakness that allows it to be applied to, essentially, any loss of life. I understand why that phrase is there, the job it's doing. It just seems to me to be unhelpfully nebulous. In this particular situation, it has allowed people to argue that the death of, when it was first applied, a fraction of a percent of a population, rising 16 months later to around 2% of that population (again, not to downplay this terrible loss of life), is something it manifestly is not.

 

Obviously the Jewish state is capable of genocide. But it is my belief that the inappropriate use of this word to describe Israeli actions, like the use of swastikas and other Nazi imagery and language, is clearly if not always consciously antisemitic. Its use is a demonstration that an individual or an organisation's intentions, or their analysis, is weak or prejudiced.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Looother said:

 

I'm not arguing with its history or impugning its intention. It just has an inherent weakness that allows it to be applied to, essentially, any loss of life. I understand why that phrase is there, the job it's doing. It just seems to me to be unhelpfully nebulous. In this particular situation, it has allowed people to argue that the death of, when it was first applied, a fraction of a percent of a population, rising 16 months later to around 2% of that population (again, not to downplay this terrible loss of life), is something it manifestly is not.

 

Obviously the Jewish state is capable of genocide. But it is my belief that the inappropriate use of this word to describe Israeli actions, like the use of swastikas and other Nazi imagery and language, is clearly if not always consciously antisemitic. Its use is a demonstration that an individual or an organisation's intentions, or their analysis, is weak or prejudiced.

Ok, well ICJ have only found a few cases of genocide since it was defined, so not easy to prove...I think intent partly the hardest bit to determine, but also what defines the group. The all or part thing also comes into it, but Israel has destroyed most of Gaza...so.... I think ok to accuse Israel of genocide, ICJ  said it was plausible...but I agree that it is thrown at Israel a lot as well as accusing them of being as bad as the Nazis and all that. But, we have this genocide definition, it is plausible Israel has been committing it, we'll see what happens, may well end up that there is just not enough evidence to conclude either way.

[steviewevie]

Trudeau apparently about to stand down. Starmer will be the only centre lefty in G7 soon.

[Looother]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

.... I think ok to accuse Israel of genocide ...

 

... but why do you need to? Have they not actually been doing enough stuff to be getting on with?

[Skip997]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Trudeau apparently about to stand down. Starmer will be the only centre lefty in G7 soon.

Correction 

 

centre righty 

[steviewevie]

11 minutes ago, Looother said:

 

... but why do you need to? Have they not actually been doing enough stuff to be getting on with?

Why accuse anyone of genocide?

[steviewevie]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Trudeau apparently about to stand down. Starmer will be the only centre lefty in G7 soon.

and the most attractive.

[steviewevie]

Actually...Italy is in G7...

[Blisterpack]

4 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Ok, well ICJ have only found a few cases of genocide since it was defined, so not easy to prove...I think intent partly the hardest bit to determine, but also what defines the group. The all or part thing also comes into it, but Israel has destroyed most of Gaza...so.... I think ok to accuse Israel of genocide, ICJ  said it was plausible...but I agree that it is thrown at Israel a lot as well as accusing them of being as bad as the Nazis and all that. But, we have this genocide definition, it is plausible Israel has been committing it, we'll see what happens, may well end up that there is just not enough evidence to conclude either way.

You do always appear fair in trying to paint the picture from all sides which is admirable, but the continued stating as fact that the ICJ had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was ‘plausible’ is simply not true. 
The president of the ICJ clarified afterwards - though barely reported anywhere outside of tbe BBC interview where she said it - that the ruling declared that South Africa had a legal right to bring a case against Israel, and that Palestinians ‘had plausible rights to protection from genocide.’ 
Those words about ‘rights to protection from genocide’ were used by SA in their submission and reflect a quite obvious human right (to be not subjected to genocide) and aren’t exceptional in that respect. It’s hardly likely that the court would rule that they didn’t have such right. 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

You do always appear fair in trying to paint the picture from all sides which is admirable, but the continued stating as fact that the ICJ had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was ‘plausible’ is simply not true. 
The president of the ICJ clarified afterwards - though barely reported anywhere outside of tbe BBC interview where she said it - that the ruling declared that South Africa had a legal right to bring a case against Israel, and that Palestinians ‘had plausible rights to protection from genocide.’ 
Those words about ‘rights to protection from genocide’ were used by SA in their submission and reflect a quite obvious human right (to be not subjected to genocide) and aren’t exceptional in that respect. It’s hardly likely that the court would rule that they didn’t have such right. 

wow...ok...I mean that was a clarification that seemed to come months after, kind of reads a bit differently to what they said at the time. Anyway, this will likely go on for a few years and if evidence provided proves Israel has been acting genocidal acts, then that will be the ICJ ruling. None of us know what that ruling will be. Pro Israel people say no genocide being committed, pro Palestine people say the evidence is clear that it definitely is genocide. But it will be ICJ judges who decide, and then one of those sides will disagree.

[Blisterpack]

5 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

You do always appear fair in trying to paint the picture from all sides which is admirable, but the continued stating as fact that the ICJ had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was ‘plausible’ is simply not true. 
The president of the ICJ clarified afterwards - though barely reported anywhere outside of tbe BBC interview where she said it - that the ruling declared that South Africa had a legal right to bring a case against Israel, and that Palestinians ‘had plausible rights to protection from genocide.’ 
Those words about ‘rights to protection from genocide’ were used by SA in their submission and reflect a quite obvious human right (to be not subjected to genocide) and aren’t exceptional in that respect. It’s hardly likely that the court would rule that they didn’t have such right. 

The President judge said specifically : 

“(The ICJ) did not decide - and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media - that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.’

 

As others have said, the term being misused has possibly made things worse for everyone. 

[steviewevie]

Considering ICJ requested Israel to prevent any future genocidal acts and then Israel started starving the people of Gaza as well as bomb shelters and hospitals and that Netanyahu is wanted for arrest by ICC I am thinking that pro Israel lot might be disappointed with the outcome.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Blisterpack said:

The President judge said specifically : 

“(The ICJ) did not decide - and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media - that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasise in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears, which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.’

 

As others have said, the term being misused has possibly made things worse for everyone. 

yes ok, but they haven't thrown it out, the case continues.

 

[Blisterpack]

Just now, steviewevie said:

yes ok, but they haven't thrown it out, the case 

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yes ok, but they haven't thrown it out, the case continues.

 

Technically that’s not true. They ruled on the things that they were asked to rule on.