198
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world 43 points 7 months ago

Who wants to place a bet if Israel is going to give a shit?

My vote is on “keep going and keep denying”.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 25 points 7 months ago

ICJ orders Israel to take measures to prevent and punish direct incitement of genocide

ICJ ruling does not explicitly order a ceasefire

Israel’s security minister responds to ICJ ruling by tweeting 'Hague Shmague'

Israel will continue to defend itself while adhering to international law, says Netanyahu

Gentlemen don't bet on a sure thing.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I know Biden gets a lot of shit for it, but I suspect this is also one of the reasons why the Biden administration has delayed criticising Netenyahu and been very cautious in doing so.

They know Netenyahu would ignore them anyway, that it would damage their alliance with Israel, and have probably come to the conclusion that being too strong wouldn't help remove him from power.

Articles like this seem to back up my theory:

After cautious criticism by Biden, Netanyahu rallies Israel’s right wing

Not that I agree with the logic, but that might partly explain it.

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

Then Biden is ignoring that this might cost him the reelection that’s coming up. Left-leaning people even in the US aren’t that keen on genocide, and a lot of them might just elect to stay at home rather than voting for an enabler.

[-] filister@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

The saddest thing is that you don't have much choice do you. It is either Biden or Trump and then you need to decide what's the lesser evil, isn't it?

Tell me again how a dual-political system is again considered a democracy?

[-] anlumo@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

The worst thing about it is that both parties are neoliberal. On the economics side, it's just an illusion of choice. They only differ on social issues.

[-] small44@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

All presidents are pro-israel nothing will change if he loses

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -1 points 7 months ago

People aren't rational.

load more comments (32 replies)
[-] arymandias@feddit.de 11 points 7 months ago

No one is forcing Biden to export weapons to Israel, knowing full well they are being used to commit war crimes.

[-] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 7 points 7 months ago

Yes, but the US iced out Pakistan and leaned into Jordan after Bin Laden was discovered in Abottabad and AQA millitants routinely received refuge in Pakistan. Alliances need to serve both sides and Netanyahu’s refusal to deescalate or take the off-ramp and let Israel move on from his policy failures, has put Biden and the US atop a geopolitical powder keg.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago
[-] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Plus the literal interpretation of some Saudi royal family member owning a milk empire is very funny to me

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Full text of the order. Juicy bits start at paragraph 75, page 24 thereabouts (goddammit pdf page numbering).

In particular, this:

The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

"Immediate and effective" is very clear language, and can be easily assessed. If Israel doesn't do that it opens the doors wide open to actually be found guilty of genocide, no wiggling "but we didn't mean to", no nothing. A legal tripwire if I've ever seen one.

Also make note of the one judge who voted against everything, including ordering that humanitarian aid be provided. No, it's not the Israeli one.

[-] Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I also noticed that judge Sebutinde voted against everything. I wonder why? Why would anyone vote against an order to provide humanitarian aid?

Edit: removed a word

[-] CollisionResistance@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

She voted against a resolution wherein even the Israeli judge voted yes.

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago

In other words, continue military complain, just give some food.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

Well they also say that Israel should make sure that the IDF, or subsets thereof, aren't committing genocide.

Ordering to stop a military campaign as such is out of the jurisdiction of the ICJ AFAIU: Israel does have the right to defend itself against Hamas under international law, arguably has the duty to do so, it's the above and beyond that's the issue, what the ICJ can actually rule on.

Stopping the IDF would be a thing for the security council, "ok you're making a mess of things, we'll take over, guaranteeing your security from Hamas while not committing genocide", but given the identity of some veto powers on the UNSC that's hypothetical at best.

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago

Notably, they did NOT call whatever Israel has done as genocide.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

Not what they ruled on so of course they didn't. They also didn't call it not a genocide.

What they ruled is that South Africa's case has enough merit to warrant a preliminary order, meaning that it is possibly, but not necessarily, a genocide, "It is not obvious that there's no genocide going on". The actual verdict will take years to reach as it requires establishing intent and everything, not just "civilians are dying and Israel could and should do more to prevent that".

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

Well, they had much more information than an average internet user has and that's quite different conclusion from what majority users on this board would immediately jump without any doubt that Israel is committing genocide.

More over, it did not say that "Israel could", i.e. it did not say that it did anything incorrectly. only that "it should take all measures within its power".

[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Not ideal, but the reasoning behind it could be practical. If the ICJ demands a ceasefire, Israel will ignore it completely and keep doing what it's doing. Netanyahu has already said so multiple times. Ordering that measures be taken to limit civilian deaths and allow more aid could result in at least some compliance that would help alleviate the suffering in Gaza.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago
[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 months ago

Why would they? It's not like they will face any consequences

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

"Please be nicer. Thanks."

That'll show 'em.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
198 points (95.8% liked)

World News

38492 readers
3169 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS