Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Thread gallery
17
mrsdineen2 · 02/05/2024 08:46

Louloulouenna · 02/05/2024 08:44

@mrsdineen2 are you happy to accept without question Hamas’s figures when it comes to
Civilian casualties?

Not for a second, no. I want the innocent people of Gaza to be free of Israeli terror, then free of that awful regime. Perfectly possible to hold both positions.

Louloulouenna · 02/05/2024 08:44

@mrsdineen2 are you happy to accept without question Hamas’s figures when it comes to
Civilian casualties?

Teddleshon · 02/05/2024 08:35

The distortion and twisting of the ICJ ruling is emblematic of the distortion of a lot of facts in this conflict.

mrsdineen2 · 02/05/2024 07:23

"You are entitled your own opinions, are not entitled to your own facts."

Was this really posted by the poster who made an entire dodgy mathematical post based on the "fact" Israel have been indiscriminately calling their victims Hamas members?

Rules for thee not for me. Commom theme.

silverneedle · 02/05/2024 03:05

Tweets on ICJ ruling/Judge Donaghue’s comments, sorry can’t write more.

Islam groups calling for caliphate in Germany, aibu to be petrified?
Islam groups calling for caliphate in Germany, aibu to be petrified?
9021Pho · 01/05/2024 23:13

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 30/04/2024 17:57

I think you need to familiarise yourself with the legal definition of genocide and study the ICC court judgement as to why the court thought it was plausible that Israel was committing genocide based on the first four grounds in the legal definition:

In the present Convention, 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:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

You are entitled your opinions @MyrtlethePurpleTurtle , you are not entitled to your own facts.

At the end of last year, South Africa filed an injunction against Israel at the International Court of Justice, accusing the Jewish state of breaching the Genocide Convention as part of its operations in the Gaza Strip against Hamas.

Around a month later, after a trial, the International Court of Justice delivered its ruling. Since then, said ruling has been distorted, misconstrued, twisted and emptied of its meaning, to serve the political interests and agendas of certain individuals (like you, it seems).

And this week, the ICJ delivered another ruling on another case lobbed at Israel indirectly.

The International Court of Justice did not rule
that Israel was plausibly committing genocide, unlike much of what we have been hearing. On 26 April, Judge Joan Donoghue, who presided over the hearing, confirmed this when she told the BBC that Court had not found Israel plausibly guilty of violating the Genocide Convention: "The shorthand that often appears, that there's a plausible case of genocide, isn't what the court has decided."

The Judge is right: the ruling does not say that Israel is plausibly committing genocide. What it deemed plausible was the right for Palestinians to be protected under the Genocide Convention and the right for South Africa to seek Israel's compliance with the convention. The closest it gets to charging Israel with genocide is when it cites several Israeli officials and describes some of their statements as dehumanising and plausibly in breach of the Genocide Convention. In the ruling, the ICJ demands that Israel ensures that genocide is prevented and the convention respected, but it does not say that Israel is currently (or at least at the time of the ruling), plausibly committing genocide. This is also why the Court declined to take provisional measures to halt Israel's operations in Gaza, like it did for Russia in Ukraine; the evidence presented, the case laid out, were insufficient for the Court to conclude that the Palestinians were at urgent risk of annihilation that would have warranted a provisional order to shelve the operations.

The Court did issue provisional measures to increase the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, to reprimand genocidal public discourse, and to report back to the Court to update it on its compliance. That’s it.

The International Court of Justice did rule that Israel was required to take steps to increase the flow of humanitarian aid entering Gaza. It also requested that Israel update the Court within a month of the order to prove that it was complying with the Court's order and taking concrete measures to abide by it. Over the months that followed, Israel implemented policies that were purposed to "flood Gaza with aid", including through:

  • New crossings: Israel reopened the Erez crossing on 4th April which has been heavily damaged by Hamas’ attacks on 10/7; it opened up a new crossing linking Israel directly to the north of the Gaza Strip; it green-lit the use of the Ashdod port to receive and facilitate the entry of aid into Gaza.
  • Facilitation of humanitarian airdrops.
  • Signiticant increase in the amount of trucks carrying aid entering Gaza everyday.
  • Partnerships and cooperation with humanitarian organisations such as the WFP.
Then at the start of March this year, Nicaragua referred to the International Court of Justice and initiated proceedings accusing Germany of "Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in Respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territories arising from Germany’s support for Israel” in the ongoing war. A couple of days ago, the ICJ delivered its ruling on Nicaragua's case, and struck it down: by 15 votes to 1, the Court found "that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to the Court, are not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate provisional measures." The ICJ thus declined to order Germany to instate an arms embargo against Israel, and found Nicaragua's accusation and case to be insubstantial.

Essentially, the January Ruling "reaffirmed Israel's right to defend its citizens and emphasized the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza." in the words of Judge Aharon Barak. In a 2004 ruling about the security barrier, the Court noted: "[Israel] has the right, and indeed the duty, to respond in order to protect the life of its citizens." This ruling is often misconstrued as a green light for Palestinians to carry out acts of terrorism while Israel would be legally prevented from responding. This is a pure misunderstanding of the ruling again.

9021Pho · 01/05/2024 22:58

MyrtlethePurpleTurtle · 30/04/2024 17:38

Except that the International Court of Justice - led by a US judge - ruled that it was plausible Israel was committing genocide 🤷‍♀️

No she didn’t - stop lying.

inamarina · 01/05/2024 17:17

EasternStandard · 01/05/2024 06:29

I’m not sure what you mean, countries do pick and choose who they need via work visas and other policies

I don’t quite get that comment either…
Surely if a government of a country encourages immigration they’re not doing it just for the sake of it? Of course they’ll want to pick and choose.

mollyfolk · 01/05/2024 11:06

Vivi0 · 01/05/2024 09:33

I do understand what genocide is.

You say at at ”risk of genocide”.

So, it is a genocide or not? And if so, how?

All the arguments that you have made for genocide don’t sound dissimilar from other conflicts which are not deemed to be genocide.

Although, when I do quick Google searches, many of the results do refer to the Syrian conflict as genocide. Same with Yemen, Ukraine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are these genocides, or not? If not, where is the line between warfare and genocide drawn, and how does what Israel is doing cross that line in comparison with other conflicts?

Well no as it stands it seems it is not genocide but at risk of becoming one. israel are certainly committing war crimes. I don’t know how to explain the line of genocide any further than I have. You’ll need to do your own research. But no it’s not “normal” to target life sustaining infrastructure in a conflict but for genocide to be present it would have to prove that Israel targeted hospitals, bakeries and agricultural land in order to wipe out Palestinians.

Syria was very complicated, I don’t think anyone could generally say it was a genocide. The isis actions against the Yazidi people could be considered an attempt to commit genocide.

Shoxfordian · 01/05/2024 10:12

Its not remotely likely to happen op, so you're unreasonable

Vivi0 · 01/05/2024 09:33

mollyfolk · 30/04/2024 21:23

basically Genocide means that there us am effort to wipe out a people, in whole or in part. So, no not every conflict could be considered genocide. The ICJ found that there was a risk of genocide in Gaza.

Arguments for genocide in Gaza include aspects of the dehumanisation of the Palestinians by members of the Israeli government which can influence the way soldiers behave on the ground. The death rate of civilians due to the military tactics used, the extent to which the Israel authorities have destroyed infrastructure critical to life in Gaza - like the bakery’s, agricultural land, the hospitals. The humanitarian crisis- with 75% of Gazan’s displaced and not enough aid coming through, the conditions that have been created have the potential to kill many more.

Edited

I do understand what genocide is.

You say at at ”risk of genocide”.

So, it is a genocide or not? And if so, how?

All the arguments that you have made for genocide don’t sound dissimilar from other conflicts which are not deemed to be genocide.

Although, when I do quick Google searches, many of the results do refer to the Syrian conflict as genocide. Same with Yemen, Ukraine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Are these genocides, or not? If not, where is the line between warfare and genocide drawn, and how does what Israel is doing cross that line in comparison with other conflicts?

Hélène79 · 01/05/2024 09:31

This reply has been deleted

Message removed as it repeated deleted post.

goody2shooz · 01/05/2024 08:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

EasternStandard · 01/05/2024 06:29

HRTQueen · 30/04/2024 23:19

If you actively encourage immigration as it suits a countries needs you don’t get to pick and choose who will be good and who will cause potential issues this the right get all excited about

I’m not sure what you mean, countries do pick and choose who they need via work visas and other policies

SometimesItMightBeNice · 01/05/2024 02:02

Vivi0 · 30/04/2024 20:33

I have read these documents. They state:

It alleges, in particular, the commission of the following acts with genocidal intent: killing, causing serious bodily and mental harm, inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. According to South Africa, genocidal intent is evident from the way in which Israel’s military attack is being conducted, from the clear pattern of conduct of Israel in Gaza and from the statements made by Israeli officials in relation to the military operation in the Gaza Strip. The Applicant also contends that “[t]he intentional failure of the Government of Israel to condemn, prevent and punish such genocidal incitement constitutes in itself a grave violation of the Genocide Convention”. South Africa stresses that any stated intention by the Respondent to destroy Hamas does not preclude genocidal intent by Israel towards the whole or part of the Palestinian people in Gaza.

But I’m no clearer on what it is that Israel is actually doing that is different from what has happened in any other conflict, or how Israel’s actions in this conflict amount to genocide, and how those actions differ from those involved in other conflicts.

I get the impression that a case for genocide could be made for every and any conflict. Is the conflict in Syria a genocide? I see that there is a case for Ukraine. Is that a genocide too? I believe ISIS’ actions amount to genocide. Hamas’ actions are certainly genocidal.

Is all killing in conflict now considered genocide? If not, can someone please explain to me the difference?

Thank you. Yes, it's still no clearer to me! If we go by this definition, as it is explained, then all wars can be considered genocide, which sort of takes away from the real persecution/ killing of groups such as the rohingya in Myanmar who are absolutely without doubt being persecuted on the basis of religion. The word loses any real weight and becomes another synonym of " war".

TempestTost · 01/05/2024 01:21

DifficultBloodyWoman · 30/04/2024 23:33

If you actively encourage immigration as it suits a countries needs you don’t get to pick and choose who will be good and who will cause potential issues this the right get all excited about

Tell that to Saudi Arabia. Or any Gulf (Arabic and Islamic) country. Immigrants will be jailed or deported or killed for any offenses that go against the country’s laws. This includes things as varied as criticizing the state religion, campaigning for free speech or equal rights, and even forming a work union.

It's a bizarre statement. Every country that accepts immigrants picks and chooses, and rejects people they don't think will fit into society.

HRTQueen · 01/05/2024 00:02

So how do we do that watch them and if they do not quite fit in they are forced to leave

and what is considered the right way the wrong way

otnot · 30/04/2024 23:44

HRTQueen · 30/04/2024 23:19

If you actively encourage immigration as it suits a countries needs you don’t get to pick and choose who will be good and who will cause potential issues this the right get all excited about

Should we not be able to pick and choose though? Surely part of suiting a country's needs is that the immigrant needs to be of use to the country? Most countries presumably aren't just importing immigrants for the hell of it, they presumably expect some benefit so surely they should be able to select people that they think are going to add the most value for the least cost?

(Please note, I am certainly not claiming that muslims do not add value, I'm purely querying the notion that the host nation shouldn't have any say about the new citizens it adopts.)

HRTQueen · 30/04/2024 23:41

We are not a country like Saudi

and neither do we want to be

we are progressive but that comes with issues too unless you feel we should behave more like Saudi

DifficultBloodyWoman · 30/04/2024 23:40

mollyfolk · 30/04/2024 22:45

No I’m certainly not arguing for that.

Hamas is a homegrown Palestinian violent terrorist group that wishes to destroy Israel.
But is not ISIS . It’s not some global jihadi movement. Isreal like to say that it is but that’s not the case at all.

but to answer your question no but i don’t think that having Hamas in charge or Israel destroying Gaza are the only two options.

Whilst I agree that ‘Hamas is a homegrown Palestinian violent terrorist group that wishes to destroy Israel’, I do think that the October 7 attacks have the hallmarks of ISIS.

I think it is highly likely Hamas has many members who also fought for ISIS, both Palestinians who fought for ISIS and other nationalities who fought for ISIS.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 30/04/2024 23:33

If you actively encourage immigration as it suits a countries needs you don’t get to pick and choose who will be good and who will cause potential issues this the right get all excited about

Tell that to Saudi Arabia. Or any Gulf (Arabic and Islamic) country. Immigrants will be jailed or deported or killed for any offenses that go against the country’s laws. This includes things as varied as criticizing the state religion, campaigning for free speech or equal rights, and even forming a work union.

DifficultBloodyWoman · 30/04/2024 23:29

Papyrophile · 30/04/2024 21:56

I'm not claiming an exhaustive knowledge of the rights and wrongs of 2000 years of history. But history tells us that Palestine has been contested, as the birthplace of three major religions, for 2000 years. Personally, because I am white, western and female, I actually prefer Israel to govern such a significant world site.

Just to clarify - Palestine is not the birthplace of the three major Abrahamic religions.

Islam is the newest - born about 1400 years ago in the 7th century in what is now Saudi Arabia.

Judaism was born about 3500 years ago on Mount Sinai which is in modern day Egypt.

Christianity, about 2000 years old, was born in what is modern day Israel and Palestine. It has been described as a messianic Jewish sect. Jesus Christ was both Jewish and seen by his followers as the Messiah. The Messiah is savior or redeemer of humanity in the Torah and Talmud (Jewish scripture). Christ is an anglicized form of ‘Khristos’ which is Greek for ‘Messiah’.

Dineasair · 30/04/2024 23:29

HRTQueen · 30/04/2024 23:19

If you actively encourage immigration as it suits a countries needs you don’t get to pick and choose who will be good and who will cause potential issues this the right get all excited about

This is irrelevant to my point. If you immigrate to another country you are admitted on the premise that you will integrate and accept the culture of that country. You have absolutely no right to attempt to change that country to suit your own culture.

HRTQueen · 30/04/2024 23:19

Dineasair · 30/04/2024 10:58

What do you mean by “struggling with the idea of being accepting and progressive of all”? Western countries have been accepting, far too accepting. The grooming gangs in the UK got away with the rapes of hundred of girls directly because people were afraid to be called racist if these men were challenged.

If you come to a country legally and you integrate and accept the social norms and the laws and customs of that country then you are more than welcome by the majority of the people. What you don’t get to do is to impose your own social norms, customs and laws on that country, and neither do your descendants. You can criticise by all means, if there are crimes being carried out against you because of your race or religion then you are right to demand that the law protects you. What you absolutely do not get to do is to change the social norms, customs and laws of that country to suit you and neither do your descendants, not under any circumstances. If you see atrocities being committed then of course you are right to challenge that, but that’s a different thing.

If you come to a country illegally and then start demanding to impose your customs and laws, that are foreign to the country that you have entered illegally, then that is invasion not migration.

If you want to live under Sharia law then pick an Islamic country, there are many very beautiful Islamic countries, and live there. You cannot have two clashing systems of law in a country, and many Sharia laws breach the human rights laws of Western countries, particularly laws and rules concerning the appearance and behaviour of females. Female genital mutilation is a crime in this country for instance, and much of Sharia law also goes against the social norms and customs of Western countries. I know Muslims who came to the West specifically to escape the restrictions that living in an Islamic country imposed, the last thing they want is for Sharia Law to be imposed on them here.

That also goes for people from the West going to Islamic countries by the way. There are caveats though, if that country isn’t a democracy and the people of that country are being oppressed by a totalitarian regime like the Taliban, then that’s a different story.

Edited

If you actively encourage immigration as it suits a countries needs you don’t get to pick and choose who will be good and who will cause potential issues this the right get all excited about

mollyfolk · 30/04/2024 22:45

No I’m certainly not arguing for that.

Hamas is a homegrown Palestinian violent terrorist group that wishes to destroy Israel.
But is not ISIS . It’s not some global jihadi movement. Isreal like to say that it is but that’s not the case at all.

but to answer your question no but i don’t think that having Hamas in charge or Israel destroying Gaza are the only two options.