South Africa's genocide case against Israel sets up a high-stakes legal battle at the UN's top court
Link to the summary of findings submitted by South Africa: https://apnews.com/article/un-court-south-africa-israel-gaza-genocide-71be2ce7f09bfee05a7cae26689ee262
South Africa’s 84-page filing says Israel’s actions “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part” of the Palestinians in Gaza.
It asks the ICJ, also known as the world court, for a series of legally binding rulings. It wants the court to declare that Israel “has breached and continues to breach its obligations under the Genocide Convention,” and to order Israel to cease hostilities in Gaza that could amount to breaches of the convention, to offer reparations, and to provide for reconstruction of what it’s destroyed in Gaza.
It says that no matter how horrible an act of war it cannot serve as justification for genocide. Can you detail how that's cringe?
Don't reply to rivermonster. Argues in bad faith and licks IDF boots super hard. Really don't bother. Every Israel thread is filled with his apologism.
I think it's important that people shoot him down using actual facts and reason, then otherwise ignore him. If it keeps just one ambivalent person from believing his lies, it's worth it. Propagandists like him rely on a lack of pushback to spread their lies.
True. It's important to respond not to him but to the people reading his propaganda. Also to educate them on how to refute other IDF propaganda.
It's pretty insane how many full on IDF trolls there are which are clearly not interested in changing their minds. Even Trump didn't have this many trolls to defend him outside of conserve echo chambers.
Oh, you know, I be hatin' I be callin' cringe
TLDR:
Condemns genocide, opening statement then disregards the attack (an act of genocide itself) by a group literally founded to commit genocide that caused the current conflict.
Long answer:
Sure, happy to: opening their genocide case by highlighting a genocidal attack by their allies (Hamas in this case), and then dismissing it. And only focusing on your allies' enemy for your argument that is alledgedly based on principal ; it both undermines the credibility of the failed state of SA and their argument.
This is a country that refused to arrest a criminal wanted for genocide.
Excusing your allies is contrary to arguing principal (in that a principal based argument isn't selective on whether you like Hamas and hate Israel). It's all sorts of super cringe and transparent what they're doing.
Hamas, their buddy, and worldnews' darling were literally founded on committing genocide. Their goal is to destroy Israel. Their foundation is a statement of genocidal intent. Their words.
In the end, it's all academic. The court can't do shit to Israel anymore than the failed state of SA can. ICJ and the ICC are as impotent as all the alt-left kids crying. In reality, this is most likely just propaganda and distraction from SA helping a criminal escape genocide charges.
Omar al-Bashir had warrants out for genocide, and SA refused to arrest him even though as signatories it was mandatory (back in 2015). They were fine with his crimes of genocide, but then again, he wasn't Israeli. LOL, they do NOT care about the principal.
To be fair, pretty much everything about the whole thing is cringe. It's just bait for the stupids and the gullibles.
Though it makes for a good laugh when you look at who the alt-left jumps into bed with.
Never thought I'd ever read someone call South Africa a Hamas ally.
Damn we really need to do something about this South African sharia regime. Gosh darn 1.5% Muslim population having country speaking out against my god ordained right to kill women and children.
Do your history homework. Originally strong ally to the PLO and Arafat and evolved into tight relations with Hamas.
Amazing, you just think genocide is justifiable. That's your cringe.
What's your basis for repeatedly calling SA allies/friends of Hamas?
None other than Bibi's hand up his ass.
Ahhh! So, by your justification, if a group of people were to universally support a terrorist group (which the Palestinians don't), then that's justification to kill every single man, woman, and child in that group. It's justification to ask non-combatants to relocate to so-called "safe"areas, then to bomb those safe areas. By your criteria, every United States citizen is also deserving of death.
All your argument really shows is that you think genocide is acceptable under certain conditions (and that you're a terrible person).