Biden's phony "ceasefire" rhetoric was used to distract from ICJ orders. What's needed is strategic moves to get the General Assembly to use Uniting for Peace to put concrete pressure on Israel.
Here's something, maybe not enough, but perhaps meaningful, not from states, who we must continue to press for real action: The Hind Rajab Foundation has filed legal complaints in Argentina and Chile demanding the immediate arrest of IDF soldier Saar Hirshoren for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. Hirshoren’s involvement in the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure is supported by extensive evidence, including social media posts and videos. The Foundation also filed a comprehensive case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) targeting the entire 749 Combat Engineering Battalion, naming 24 members for systematic war crimes. Key battalion leaders are accused of orchestrating the mass destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals in Gaza. The Foundation emphasizes the urgency of preventing Hirshoren from evading justice. It calls on Argentina, Chile, and the ICC to issue arrest warrants and prosecute those responsible. This global campaign aims to end impunity and ensure accountability for atrocities in Gaza.
Sam H, would there be a genocide if Israel wasn't occupying Palestine? Who remembers the ICJ July 2024 Case 186 ruling, that Israel needs to exit and compensate Palestine, and UN members are obligated to assist Israel's departure?
The USA is a UN member still? Doesn't that mean US states are obligated to comply? Meaning for one, BDS to assist Israel out. Yet what residents even know let alone pressure their states to eliminate anti-BDS laws apparently illegally boycotting companies participating in BDS? How many residents realize they may live in a state and country that apparently break international laws with impunity? Who explains to law abiding residents our obligation to keep our government law abiding? Or what's a democracy for?
Who remembers Dr. Ralph Wilde's bell ringingly clear lesson on Palestine's right to self-determination, and Israel's obligation to leave IMMEDIATELY. And, incidentally, comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention.
ICJ Summary, Case 186, last paragraph bot. p. 18, ". . . all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. . . . [and] to ensure that any impediment resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation. . . to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention."
Please correct errors - this doesn't seem like rocket science so surely there's some wrong reasoning in interpreting US democracy as participatory and law abiding?
Let's hear it for each battle won but as long as the US - with its enormous coercive global influence and UNSC veto power - has Israel's back, working within international law lacks enforcement capability. To make matters worse, in reality there's very little differentiation between the US' and Israel's 'backs'.
Isn't it a matter of perspective and taking responsibility? Kristen Zornada, international human rights lawyer on compliance (Article 94, UN Charter) v. enforcement, after 2.00, and after 10.30 here,
Thank you... I watched the video and I appreciate their intellectual passion for international law, but curiously, not for stopping genocide. When Kristen Zornada was making her summation, she said (paraphrase) 'I understand why some are disillusioned about Israeli genocide or whatever...' I found this 'whatever' callous. She's a lawyer, her specialty is international law and that's what she seemed most concerned about - not the people who are supposed to be protected by the law. Also, this video was made 5 months ago (before the Paris Olympics) so I think it's crucial to examine the impact of the ICJ decision in the interim. In these past 5 months we've seen the expansion of Israeli and US aggression with Beirut bombing, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iranian leaders assassinated and Syria invaded by a consortium of forces... including Israel.
M Miller, thanks for your interest! You hit critical points, a distinction of roles and a (relatively quick) evolution of circumstances. I see international law as defense rather than caregiving, its skills honed for and applied to an outward focus on aggressors not victims. One message I took from Zornada was a reiteration in her own way of Dr. Ralph Wilde's clear presentation to the ICJ of Israel's illegal occupation, legal requirement to exit occupied Palestine, and obligation of UN member states to assist that departure, all echoed by the ICJ ruling. An accountability domino effect: UN members remove their financial, military, political, social support to Israel, Ukraine regime, Syrian 'rebels' or fill-in-the-blank, as international law including the UN charter requires; members of UN member groups apply this resource constriction as needed to peers (e.g., businesses, social/political/religious groups) and administrations (federal, state, local, neighborhood) until the message is received and acted on by the next level up. It makes me think of that Confucius quote about righteousness in the heart . . . peace in the world. The rules are already agreed on - signed and sealed! - it only remains to comply, or change them through public process and then comply. With appropriate consequences for noncompliance as above. Results: no occupation, no genocide, no victims, resources redirected to the public good. BDS is a nonaggressive tool. With no response from my current state administration about its apparently illegal anti-BDS statute, it seems ripe for renewed confrontation of a new administration. Local and statewide media too.. It seems a simple enough tautology if I understand that word correctly: we're law abiding or we're not, we're a democracy or we're not. If we are, aren't we each responsible to personally assist Israel's compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and exit from Palestine and other invasions. BDS and pointing out some glaring bureaucratic contradictions are two paths to smooth and widen for more feet to tread. Personal power applied collectively is, well, powerful.
Thanks again PR. I think you're presenting a "what came first, the law or the victim" argument. I might have misinterpreted but in my view, there wouldn't be a law unless there was a victim. Ultimately, it's well and good to have justice in one's heart but when crimes are committed, unless those who feel the heartbeat of righteousness spend real time and real effort organizing their shared emotions into a powerful movement, it won't alter the course of conflict. In the Vietnam War, even Buddhist monks rioted, showing their outrage at mistreatment. Zornada's presentation was a step in the right direction but it isn't enough. I suggest that those who truly believe Israel is behaving genocidally and that the US is abetting them, imagine themselves as the wounded or dead Palestinian victims. And, if you live in a state with anti-BDS legislation on the books (I think there are now 38 in the thrall of AIPAC), harangue the governor and legislators. Organize protests outside the state capitol.
In my experience, laws come first. The best laws state general parameters of positive action outside which are violations. Ineffective laws state negatives you can typically avoid or escape. Among other things we've generally lost the skill of drafting good laws and few enough laws. The World Justice Project definition of the rule of law, "The rule of law is a durable system of laws, institutions, norms, and community commitment that delivers four universal principles: accountability, just law, open government, and accessible and impartial justice" apparently associated with better economies, more peaceful environments, higher education attainment, and longer lifespans.
Your original comment was about the inability to enforce international law. I saw Zornada's perspective as not about pressuring enforcers to enforce but responsibility ourselves to comply and in ICJ Case 186, thereby enforce. Individual responsibility. Nonviolent resistance.
This is where we disagree. I think anti-societal behavior is the catalyst for laws. Otherwise, laws are a pure abstraction manufactured without a basis. There is a duality of purpose: laws are meant not only to punish offenders, they're supposed to protect society. Some laws are challenged as unnecessary precisely because they're in the so-called "victimless" category. If I remember correctly, prostitution and gambling are often used as examples. International law is the law that governs relationships between countries and accepted international norms of behavior. Individuals by definition have no standing. That's why it was South Africa that brought the genocide case against Israel. Therefore, the only recourse by an individual is to pressure their own government. And yes, individual responsibility and non-violent resistance can be a part of that strategy but to have a real world impact, even at the local level, there has to be a coalescence into larger groups to be able to even peacefully challenge authority. I came of age during the Vietnam antiwar movement and at times there was violence, often perpetrated by the various law enforcement arms of government but occasionally by those protesting the war. Without huge masses of people on the streets and university campuses with peace in their hearts, the war would have dragged on much longer than it did.
Here's something, maybe not enough, but perhaps meaningful, not from states, who we must continue to press for real action: The Hind Rajab Foundation has filed legal complaints in Argentina and Chile demanding the immediate arrest of IDF soldier Saar Hirshoren for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity committed in Gaza. Hirshoren’s involvement in the deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure is supported by extensive evidence, including social media posts and videos. The Foundation also filed a comprehensive case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) targeting the entire 749 Combat Engineering Battalion, naming 24 members for systematic war crimes. Key battalion leaders are accused of orchestrating the mass destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals in Gaza. The Foundation emphasizes the urgency of preventing Hirshoren from evading justice. It calls on Argentina, Chile, and the ICC to issue arrest warrants and prosecute those responsible. This global campaign aims to end impunity and ensure accountability for atrocities in Gaza.
They can use our help. Please read the article and join me in making a contribution. https://buy.stripe.com/cN228hbY5g7jaM84gg
Sam H, would there be a genocide if Israel wasn't occupying Palestine? Who remembers the ICJ July 2024 Case 186 ruling, that Israel needs to exit and compensate Palestine, and UN members are obligated to assist Israel's departure?
The USA is a UN member still? Doesn't that mean US states are obligated to comply? Meaning for one, BDS to assist Israel out. Yet what residents even know let alone pressure their states to eliminate anti-BDS laws apparently illegally boycotting companies participating in BDS? How many residents realize they may live in a state and country that apparently break international laws with impunity? Who explains to law abiding residents our obligation to keep our government law abiding? Or what's a democracy for?
Who remembers Dr. Ralph Wilde's bell ringingly clear lesson on Palestine's right to self-determination, and Israel's obligation to leave IMMEDIATELY. And, incidentally, comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Dr. Ralph Wilde, presentation to the ICJ
https://youtu.be/EUrLQES3TmY?feature=shared
ICJ Summary, Case 186, last paragraph bot. p. 18, ". . . all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. . . . [and] to ensure that any impediment resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation. . . to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention."
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-sum-01-00-en.pdf
Thirty-eight states with anti-BDS laws, and map per wikipedia, no federal law yet,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
Please correct errors - this doesn't seem like rocket science so surely there's some wrong reasoning in interpreting US democracy as participatory and law abiding?
Ceasefire rhetoric comes out of the same bag of tricks as two-state solution. Watch what the do (if you can stand it), not what they say.
Watch what they do AND what they say? To compare later in your comedy routine and/or public comment?
Let's hear it for each battle won but as long as the US - with its enormous coercive global influence and UNSC veto power - has Israel's back, working within international law lacks enforcement capability. To make matters worse, in reality there's very little differentiation between the US' and Israel's 'backs'.
Isn't it a matter of perspective and taking responsibility? Kristen Zornada, international human rights lawyer on compliance (Article 94, UN Charter) v. enforcement, after 2.00, and after 10.30 here,
https://youtu.be/suhyTL8-0j0?feature=shared
Your thoughts?
Thank you... I watched the video and I appreciate their intellectual passion for international law, but curiously, not for stopping genocide. When Kristen Zornada was making her summation, she said (paraphrase) 'I understand why some are disillusioned about Israeli genocide or whatever...' I found this 'whatever' callous. She's a lawyer, her specialty is international law and that's what she seemed most concerned about - not the people who are supposed to be protected by the law. Also, this video was made 5 months ago (before the Paris Olympics) so I think it's crucial to examine the impact of the ICJ decision in the interim. In these past 5 months we've seen the expansion of Israeli and US aggression with Beirut bombing, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iranian leaders assassinated and Syria invaded by a consortium of forces... including Israel.
M Miller, thanks for your interest! You hit critical points, a distinction of roles and a (relatively quick) evolution of circumstances. I see international law as defense rather than caregiving, its skills honed for and applied to an outward focus on aggressors not victims. One message I took from Zornada was a reiteration in her own way of Dr. Ralph Wilde's clear presentation to the ICJ of Israel's illegal occupation, legal requirement to exit occupied Palestine, and obligation of UN member states to assist that departure, all echoed by the ICJ ruling. An accountability domino effect: UN members remove their financial, military, political, social support to Israel, Ukraine regime, Syrian 'rebels' or fill-in-the-blank, as international law including the UN charter requires; members of UN member groups apply this resource constriction as needed to peers (e.g., businesses, social/political/religious groups) and administrations (federal, state, local, neighborhood) until the message is received and acted on by the next level up. It makes me think of that Confucius quote about righteousness in the heart . . . peace in the world. The rules are already agreed on - signed and sealed! - it only remains to comply, or change them through public process and then comply. With appropriate consequences for noncompliance as above. Results: no occupation, no genocide, no victims, resources redirected to the public good. BDS is a nonaggressive tool. With no response from my current state administration about its apparently illegal anti-BDS statute, it seems ripe for renewed confrontation of a new administration. Local and statewide media too.. It seems a simple enough tautology if I understand that word correctly: we're law abiding or we're not, we're a democracy or we're not. If we are, aren't we each responsible to personally assist Israel's compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and exit from Palestine and other invasions. BDS and pointing out some glaring bureaucratic contradictions are two paths to smooth and widen for more feet to tread. Personal power applied collectively is, well, powerful.
Dr. Ralph Wilde's ICJ presentation,
https://youtu.be/EUrLQES3TmY?feature=shared
ICJ Case 186 summary, see p. 18, Legal consequences for other states
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-sum-01-00-en.pdf
Confucius,
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/202222-if-there-is-righteousness-in-the-heart-there-will-be
We think. We act. Words and deeds. Your thoughts?
Thanks again PR. I think you're presenting a "what came first, the law or the victim" argument. I might have misinterpreted but in my view, there wouldn't be a law unless there was a victim. Ultimately, it's well and good to have justice in one's heart but when crimes are committed, unless those who feel the heartbeat of righteousness spend real time and real effort organizing their shared emotions into a powerful movement, it won't alter the course of conflict. In the Vietnam War, even Buddhist monks rioted, showing their outrage at mistreatment. Zornada's presentation was a step in the right direction but it isn't enough. I suggest that those who truly believe Israel is behaving genocidally and that the US is abetting them, imagine themselves as the wounded or dead Palestinian victims. And, if you live in a state with anti-BDS legislation on the books (I think there are now 38 in the thrall of AIPAC), harangue the governor and legislators. Organize protests outside the state capitol.
In my experience, laws come first. The best laws state general parameters of positive action outside which are violations. Ineffective laws state negatives you can typically avoid or escape. Among other things we've generally lost the skill of drafting good laws and few enough laws. The World Justice Project definition of the rule of law, "The rule of law is a durable system of laws, institutions, norms, and community commitment that delivers four universal principles: accountability, just law, open government, and accessible and impartial justice" apparently associated with better economies, more peaceful environments, higher education attainment, and longer lifespans.
https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/what-rule-law
Your original comment was about the inability to enforce international law. I saw Zornada's perspective as not about pressuring enforcers to enforce but responsibility ourselves to comply and in ICJ Case 186, thereby enforce. Individual responsibility. Nonviolent resistance.
This is where we disagree. I think anti-societal behavior is the catalyst for laws. Otherwise, laws are a pure abstraction manufactured without a basis. There is a duality of purpose: laws are meant not only to punish offenders, they're supposed to protect society. Some laws are challenged as unnecessary precisely because they're in the so-called "victimless" category. If I remember correctly, prostitution and gambling are often used as examples. International law is the law that governs relationships between countries and accepted international norms of behavior. Individuals by definition have no standing. That's why it was South Africa that brought the genocide case against Israel. Therefore, the only recourse by an individual is to pressure their own government. And yes, individual responsibility and non-violent resistance can be a part of that strategy but to have a real world impact, even at the local level, there has to be a coalescence into larger groups to be able to even peacefully challenge authority. I came of age during the Vietnam antiwar movement and at times there was violence, often perpetrated by the various law enforcement arms of government but occasionally by those protesting the war. Without huge masses of people on the streets and university campuses with peace in their hearts, the war would have dragged on much longer than it did.