Are you neutral and knowledgable?

[Itsokaytomorrowisanewday]

If you are both knowledgeable and neutral, please can you explain the current issues in the Middle East- why is there conflict between Israel with Lebanon, and Iran and Gaza? What is the history leading up to this current conflict ? Why are the USA involved? Why do the USA want NATO to be involved?

I thought I knew what was going on for a while, but the speed of information, and the bravado and bluster, has got me confused. It now feels like Orwell’s 1984 with a stream of endless wars and no one is quite sure who the enemy is anymore.

I’m not seeing much neutrality in the posts.

No I don’t think any of us are completely neutral in all honesty.

@Itsokaytomorrowisanewday would be better reading lots of different sources and reaching their own conclusions.

I agree.

Only legally.
Many of us can see with our own eyes, ears and brains that Israel have been engaging in a genocide in Gaza. They are now deliberately murdering civilians in Lebanon.

An excellent post @TulipLavender
It is sad to see how much havoc the US and the UK have caused historically, even in one, small region.

Only legally 😂

Well yes, the legal definitions of things are quite important.

They clearly are to you. Others are able to think more independently, as I already said.

So the legal definition of genocide is important. The legal definition of imminent threat is not.

Yes I do find it helpful in life to accept the legal definitions of things.

The ICJ stated in January 2024 that "the facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible." In order to protect those rights while the ICJ deliberates this case, the Court issued the following legally binding emergency orders: prevent genocidal acts (prevent killing, serious harm, and conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction); punish incitement; enable the entry of humanitarian aid; and preserve evidence.

Independent monitors and UN agencies have consistently reported that Israel has failed to meet these legally binding obligations. Civilian casualties have continued to mount: as of 26 January 2024, reported fatalities stood at approximately 26,000; as of April 2026, fatalities stand at over 72,000. That is nearly 50,000 deaths that could have been avoided had Israel complied with the emergency orders.

The order to enable the entry of humanitarian aid was flagrantly ignored. Israel continued to block aid and kill aid workers—the airstrike that killed the seven aid workers from World Central Kitchen happened in April 2024. Statements from officials calling for the destruction of Gaza have not been stopped, let alone punished. And Israel blocked access to independent investigators while the UN was denied unimpeded access to assess the allegations.

Further legally binding orders were issued in March and May of 2024 explicitly demanding a halt to the invasion of Rafah. These orders were ignored. These are binding legal obligations that remain unfulfilled to this day.

The ICJ's final ruling will tell us if Israel is legally liable for the crime of genocide. It will not tell us if the people of Gaza are being annihilated. That is a question for our own eyes and conscience. And witnesses are allowed to describe what they see.

The Nuremberg trials didn't finish until 1946. The ICTR didn't rule on Rwanda until 1998. If you had told someone in 1944 or 1994 that they weren't allowed to call what was happening "genocide" because a court hadn't stamped the paperwork yet, you would have been dismissed as absurd—or worse, seen as complicit. We don’t need a judge's permission to name what is happening before our eyes. The law follows the crime, it doesn’t invent it.

yes @Kassamungo The ICJ's final ruling will tell us if Israel is legally liable for the crime of genocide.

That is what I said.

Before the legal ruling it is people's opinions.

Thank you for that informative post and for highlighting how it very much is not a black and white, they did or they didn't, scenario which many seem to suggest.

Independent monitors and UN agencies have consistently reported that Israel has failed to meet these legally binding obligations.
So legally binding emergency orders to prevent genocidal acts, interesting they've not adhered to them after being specifically legally ordered to.

The comparison with the Nazis is completely false though. The Jewish people didn't attack anyone. Israel was fighting a war started by Hamas. Whatever you think of how they have conducted that war there is no comparison between the Holocaust and a war against Hamas.

And just for clarity on the ICJ, as so many people misunderstand it
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919

No one is suggesting it is black and white.

Defining a genocide is a very complex process. Hence it requires a court of law and can take several years to determine.

It’s a hugely complicated topic. I suggest you find a good source of journalism to read. It won’t be entirely neutral either. The Economist is really good on international relations. The Conversation is good too.

Just out of genuine curiosity, to pps discussing this, if the ICJs verdict is that genocide has been committed will those who don’t view it as one, will you then call it a genocide?
And if the verdict is that it’s not a genocide will those who do call it one, will you not call it genocide any more?

(Not trying to be goady at all just curious)

Raphael Lemkin coined the term ‘genocide’ in 1944 long before any court ever ruled on it. It entered the lexicon of ordinary people, specifically so we could name an ongoing crime. It is a descriptive noun, not a legal verdict. The Genocide Convention itself demands states prevent genocide before a court rules, which would be impossible if we’re not allowed to name it… And the ICJ has already found the allegations plausible enough to issue binding emergency orders (as previously mentioned and duly ignored by you). If the world's highest court can act on the risk of genocide, we can describe what happens when those orders are ignored. No one is issuing a judicial finding of state liability. We are describing what we see using the word the English language provides.

If you were in Germany in 1944 and someone said that genocide was being committed, would you tell them that’s just an opinion until we get a legal verdict out of Nuremberg in 1946? If you wouldn’t have said that then you shouldn’t say it now…

It’s obviously not a genocide.

I have read the ICJ Order of 26 January 2024 in its entirety; I am not in the slightest bit confused.

Firstly, the comparison was made in the context of naming a crime in real time. Secondly, legally ‘self-defence’ is not a defence to genocide. The ICJ ordered Israel to stop actions that risk genocide and Israel ignored those orders.

Speaking for myself, if it ultimately is determined to be a genocide by an international court of law (there may be appeals so the final verdict) I will then think of it as a genocide and call it that.

I think it's very nuanced though and not easy to determine at this stage whether there is intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

I currently don't believe it's a genocide, but I think its possible I'm wrong, particularly taking into account the withholding of aid and some of the rhetoric from the religious nutjobs in the Knesset. The reasons I overall think most likely not are too much to go into here.
I'll come here and admit I was wrong if I am.
I'm really interested to see if some frequent posters on here will come and admit they're wrong if the decision goes with Israel.

That's a different point to the one that I was making about confusion. We see people repeatedly claim that the court ruled that it was plausible that there was a genocide happening. That's not what the court ruled. I wasn't saying you said that - I was referring to the context in which some people will read your post.

I would be interested too if anyone will come and admit they're wrong if the decision goes with Israel.

Maybe one of the frequent posters will reply to @LassiKopiano24 in good faith as we have done and say they are open to changing their mind because as you say, it's possible to be wrong.

For the same reasons as you, I don't feel like I'm 100% sure in my opinion and recognise it for what it is - an opinion formed where we don't have all the evidence and where there is room for doubt.

You're entirely wrong in your Iranian history. The British American coup in 1953 was what led to the westernised liberal Iran that is so feted. It wasn't like that before. The 1979 revolution was an entirely internal thing, in which mainly rural and predominantly younger Iranians who opposed the western influence in the country, overthrew the American-backed monarchy and installed Khomeini. There was a 98 percent approval referend vote in favour of the current Islamic Republic. Although that was unrealistically high due to the way the voting system operated - the balloting wasn't exactly secret - it's widely accepted that there would have been a strong majority in favour.