327
Israel appears to be in breach of ICJ orders on Gaza, senior UN official says.
(amp.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
327 points (94.1% liked)
World News
38936 readers
2139 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not just Israel, all the countries that defunded the humanitarian aid.
The article at least mentions that even though the order didn't demand ceasefire, it practically did very explicitly:
Many western media had the headline "no ceasefire ordered" which made the order sound like it was nothing. The western media too is complicit in atrocity.
Countries de-funded UNRWA because they had people on their payroll that participated in actual genocide on October 7.
Many countries have switched to providing aid through alternative channels.
Really Guterres should resign, because how can an investigation of the UNRWA be trusted when it's in the best interests of the UN Secretary General to prove it didn't happen to avoid responsibility?
At this point the UN is just becoming less and less of a factor in the conflict because of their failures in leadership. I mean trying to make excuses for October 7, then not even apologizing when there's a valid complaint about it. The UN is failing at diplomacy 101. The UN failed to properly vet the people they have working for them. If people on the UN payroll committed genocide, how seriously can we take claims coming from the UN about genocide?
We really need the UN be a part of a potential future peace in Gaza, but the UN is continuously failing in every possible way in regards to Gaza. There needs to be serious changes at the UN. There's a need for an impartial diplomatic organization in the world, and the UN in it's current form simply isn't capable of being that.
Why are you lying? There is zero evidence provided that any UNRWA member participated in the attack.
The "evidence" that was provided by israel was proven fake by Sky News and Channel4.
Honestly, what gives? The language you are quoting here is neither from the article nor from the ICJ order.
The ICJ order did not require Israel to take a single affirmative step other than to provide a status report on or before February 23rd, as this article mentions in the second paragraph.
As a lawyer that as read the order, it's you that is misrepresenting it not "western media."
Direct quote from: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
Tell me again how you're a lawyer who read the order lol. But we've seen again and again how Israel operatives lie to justify their fascist regime and their genocide.
Yes the language in that first paragraph about the Genocide Convention was left out of the Guardian articl and the person above, who purported to quote the order, but at least used an ellipses to indicate the omission, unlike the Guardian.
This part of the order (P79) refers only to killings to which are barred under the Genocide Conventions, not the mere killing of any Palestinian, which is what OP, you, and the Guardian article falsely implied.
P79 is another good example. You've quoted it here presumably to argue that "see, Israel does have to take affirmative steps." Here Israel must prosecute people for war crimes and incitement to genocide. Well, you're ignoring the part of the order that finds Israel is already doing that, and they are.
80 and 81, same thing. Israel is already in compliance, at least that's what they will argue and provide evidence of in their status report due to the ICJ on February 23.
E: If only down voting me could make your feelings about what's in the order actually match the order.
You said:
u/LarmyofLone then quoted the order, showing that the language they used was exactly from the order.
Take the L, mate.
Are you dense?
Larmy omitted a key part of the sentence in paragraph 79, which is the paragraph the original news story was paraphrasing. Both Larmy and the Guardian's omission gave a misleading impression that the ICJ ordered Israel not to kill any more Palestinians.
Obviously, that's not what the order said.
The actual text:
The paraphrasing:
It looks like the only difference here is changing "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of", to "desist from the commission of", which is fairly reasonable and doesn't change the meaning, since "desist" alone can be taken to mean "refrain from" or "cease".
So yes, I must be dense, because I still can't see how your accusation of changing the language holds water. Also, it seems to be para. 78 we're dealing with, not 79, whose subject is incitement.
You're still missing the key difference. Right, 78.
This is the language that was omitted:
Israel cannot kill Palestinians in violation of the Genocide Convention. No kidding?
That's not the same as saying Israel cannot kill any Palestinians.
Then that's what LarmyofLone said. "Within the scope of the convention." Why can't you back down mate? It'll be good for you. We all make mistakes.
Nah go back further to Larmy's initial comment and the Guardian article linked at the top of this post. Larmy's second post too leaves out the word "Genocide Convention" and just says "convention."
Both altered the text of the actual order to make it appear as though Israel was ordered not to kill any Palestinians, and they did it on purpose to make Israel look like it is violating the order.
It's always illegal by the ICJ standards to kill people in violation of the Genocide Convention. It's not always a violation of the Genocide Convention to kill people, though. That's a significant difference.
For the sake of profit they will light the spark that burns down the world and then blame us for forcing them to do it.
I think many of the people in Palestine felt betrayed that they did not use the words cease fire. When faced with this existential crisis, nothing less is acceptable.
The icj used language that practically meant cease fire, but mid east news expressed disappointment.
So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you're admonishing "Western" media, but if that was the perspective you heard - No cease fire was called for - it probably accurately represents the sentiment of many of the people there.
The South Africans understood what the icj said, and their comments immediately following the decision illustrated that.
You could be right but the way the media here works is that they do report the facts but bias them. The headline sets the tone, and how the article is written makes it more likely to come to one conclusion. So it would take much more work to make my point. But I'm pretty sure: Even if they do technically report the facts there is a huge bias to manipulate the population in the "free" press.
In this case something like "ooohh too bad the court didn't give the arabs what they wanted poor guys!" while it really was a legal victory - the court specifically ordered them to stop killing of palestinians.
I can't read newspapers without getting super angry lol
The court did not specifically order that. Luckily we have the order and you may read it for yourself. You don't have to rely on the incorrect analysis of the person who said otherwise or this article, which paraphrased the order to make it sound as though it contained something which it did not contain. OP-above used an ellipses to omit a pretty crucial sentence of the order. It does not bar the killing of any Palestinians as the Guardian article and OP have implied with selective paraphrasing and omissions.
JustZ is right in this case, and I always disagree with them lol. They want Israel to stop doing genocidal actions, so inciting genocide, blocking humanitarian aid, the most genocide-like of the collective punishment stuff. But they didn't go as far as to call for a ceasefire or anything like that. They went farther than the Zionists who were calling it a victory, but that doesn't mean they went as far as some people on the left think they did.