ICJ decision holds that Israel’s siege on Gaza is “plausible” genocide By Dave McKee The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled today that Israel’s siege on Gaza is a “plausible” genocide and has ordered a series of emergency, provisional measures that Israel must take. Shamefully, the Canadian government’s response to the decision by the highest […]
Because Canada’s hands are dirty too?
Still doing the genocide to this day.
Because the preliminary ruling did not determine if actual genocide was and is occurring. Only that everything mist be done to prevent it from occurring.
The actual trial will determine if what is going on rises to the legal definition of genocide.
And as others pointed out the trial will probably be a regrettably long process
I mean the preliminary ruling couldn’t have found anything more than what they said: that Israel’s actions in Gaza could plausibly ammount to genocide. Canada, and all countries, have a responsibility to stop genocides before they happen. The ICJ condemned the mass killing of civilians by the IDF in no unclear terms. The ICJ condemned the blocks to humanitarian aid entering Gaza in no unclear terms. The ICJ quoted statements by the Israeli minister of defence from multiple addresses as having plausible genocidal intent.
Be it a #genuine genocide or not, hiding behind the preliminary aspect of the ruling doesn’t absolve Israel, the US, Canada, or the world of its responsibility to take action to stop clear crimes against humanity committed by the IDF that could plausibly amount to genocide, and that are being perpetrated with western supplied weapons.
We collectively have the power and responsibility to pressure Israel to respect international law.
Absolutely, and as I understand most governments they simply state “it’s not genocide we do not support genocide”… so the premise of the question in the headline was incorrect.
Yes, but at this point it literally could not look any more like a genocide. By every legal mechanism possible at this point, any stronger wording could not be possible. By that logic, genocide can only happen in the past, after a trial has made an official ruling.
The trial has begun, and was overwhelming voted as having merit. I don’t know what more anyone could want here. We’re staring down a live-streamed extermination and debating the wording we can use to describe it.
If the ICJ rules this a genocide in the future, the actions taken by its alies right now could ammount to assisting in their genocide.
Yes, I agree with all points you made.
Governments are legal entities mostly filled with lawyers that dance around legalese and semantics, now also.
The Rwandan genocide was also like this in the sense that noone expected this many casualties could be accrued with machetes and small arms in such a short time… In the end the whole world watched as in 100 days somewhere between 500k and 1 million people where killed and half of that number where raped. Once the fog of war lifted the extent of the horror became clear.
I think the whole situation in the middle east around Israel and Palestinians is incredibly difficult, since there is so much bad blood between all parties that I cannot imagine an outcome that would last over time…
It’s something rather uncomplicated if you look at it through the lens of settler colonialism. This is been Noam Chomsky’s project for decades if you’re interested in looking deeper into it. But yes the bad blood and the bad faith arguments run deep.
I’m familiar with Mr Chomsky’s work, I don’t agree to all of it but he has some very deep well thought out thoughts on the matter.
It’s not difficult at all. One state Palestine. Zionists can fuck off back to their home country or learn to co-exist as equals.
Sometimes I wonder if international laws against genocide have done more harm than good. When we see atrocities occurring where it’s strategically inconvenient to intervene we look the other way or squabble over legal definitions - anything to excuse ourselves from getting involved. The results are no different than if these laws did not exist, except that we are also complicit in denial, which in itself is a terrible thing.
Remember when foreign minister flow a female trapped in an airport citing humans rights and Canada rule in advocating human rights, along with media being very focal about potential famine in Yemen due to attempted attack on an essential port? The same ports that US and UK attacking now?
Yet dead silence about genocide or potential genocide and multiple press dying along with multiple famine warnings.
The press release for foreign minister says “Israel havr the right to defend itself” and atrocities committed in October 7 which Israel media now picking up on stories how IDF killed many of them.
Being silent like they are not allowed to speak about Israel means they are not representing tax payers and scared for some reason. At least tell the reason so people know why…
Remember when foreign minister flow a female trapped in an airport citing humans rights and Canada rule in advocating human rights, along with media being very focal about potential famine in Yemen due to attempted attack on an essential port?
Can you please edit that so it makes sense? I’d like to understand what you’re saying.
