Palestinian Resistance Launch Major Attack on Israel: What Happened? – LIVE BLOG

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,312
From The Guardian’s live updates feed:

UK publishes position on legality of military action to target Houthi facilities
In a legal position published today, the UK said it was permitted under international law to use force to target Houthi facilities.

It underscored that “the Houthis have been carrying out dozens of serious attacks on shipping in the Red Sea for a sustained period” and “British flagged vessels, as well as the vessels of many other states, have been the subject of those attacks”.

It added:

The government assesses that attacks will continue unless action is taken to deter them.
Military intervention to strike carefully identified targets in order to effectively downgrade the Houthi’s capabilities and deter further attacks was lawfully taken. It was necessary and proportionate to respond to attacks by the Houthis and this was the only feasible means available to deal with such attacks.
The UK is permitted under international law to use force in such circumstances where acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an actual or imminent armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate.
The government will notify the UN security council of the actions it has taken under Article 51 of the UN charter.
 

Stucky

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,960
They’ve provided no evidence for their claims.
It was an embarrassment to be honest
I'm still trying to figure out what case they were making. Although there does seem to be some suggestion that they could win on a 'technicality' on either jurisdiction or whether there was an actual dispute between them and S.A. I guess either of those two things would offer the court an easy way out.

The evidence on quite a few of their claims was flimsy at best and outright lying at worst.
A perfect example of this was while they were claiming they were providing sufficent aid to Gaza the U.N was saying this,

UN Deplores Israel's 'Systematic' Refusal to Grant Access to North Gaza


 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,312
Although there does seem to be some suggestion that they could win on a 'technicality' on either jurisdiction or whether there was an actual dispute between them and S.A.
I think you’re right. They spent a bit of time stating there was never an issue between S.A and Israel. They also said genocide is done with initial intent and the comments, actions, and rhetoric S.A referenced was done after the provocation of 7th October…it seems they’re pleading a case of ‘Hamas started it, sad about the civilian deaths, yes we made some mistakes but they want to kill us like the Nazis, so we have to bomb them everywhere and we will be careful next time.’

If the judges consider the atrocities that pre date Oct 7th which S.A did clearly provide evidence of and they consider the intention to make Gaza uninhabitable with the lack of medicine, food and water then S.A could still win as Israel didn’t address this. There is no reason to withhold aid and their claims that Hamas hijacked aid doesn’t wash given the wealth of trucks that were and have been stopped from entering.

Unfortunately, they can lie about bombing hospitals and schools and safe zones and claim that Hamas was there, this will be lapped up as a decent excuse. Same with the civilian death toll, as they claimed today, it’s a consequence of war and dismissed as collateral damage. People will deduce it’s not their fault that Gaza has a high percentage of kids amongst their populace…
 

Stucky

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,960
I missed this one from yesterday,


From today

 

Stucky

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,960
Posted an excerpt from this earlier it has been updated and expanded.

 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,312
Can’t find this on a news site so will take with a pinch of salt for now.

Too good to be true, won’t happen and is probably fake news.

‘If we lived in a just society, one which was governed by a rule of law applied evenly and fairly to all nations, U.S. officials would be appearing in international war crimes tribunals alongside the Israeli leaders whose criminal actions they are facilitating in every measurable manner. But that will never happen. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. government has operated as an emperor on matters of international law, issuing edicts about who can and cannot be held accountable for the gravest of crimes. There is even a law, known as the Hague Invasion Act that authorizes the U.S. president to use force to liberate any American or allied personnel brought before an international court on war crime charges’

Source: https://theintercept.com/2024/01/11/israel-genocide-hague-south-africa/

UNLESS they can file a case under another means of intent. That would require some serious thinking and planning.
 

Haich

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,312
A brief summary of the breakdown of Israel’s submissions to the ICJ

Posted here for those who don’t have Twitter:

1) The court has no jurisdiction as there is no actual dispute between South Africa and Israel as Israel did not have an opportunity to discuss matters and rebut SA’s assertions prior to SA making an application to the Court

2) no genocidal intent - don’t listen to the words of our politicians as they don’t count unless made within the war cabinet/ operational policy structure of Israel - if you look at those only then there is no intent. All other statements are just puff and anger with no force that transposes them into operational reality

3) even if some statements made are genocidal you can’t take them on their own you have to look at other statements which are not genocidal and over all there is no evidence of genocidal intent

4) if Israeli military has transgressed, Israel has a system of justice to hold them accountable so court should look at transgressions as isolated and not a matter of Israel’s policy

5) SA supports Hamas so they have no credibility

6) court cannot bind Hamas thus by binding Israel only it would create a manifest imbalance leading to irreparable harm to Israel.

7) Hamas used civilian infrastructure to conduct warfare thus Israel had no choice but to destroy said infrastructure - all destruction of civilian infrastructure is hamas’s fault not Israel’s and is proportionate in any event

8) technical arguments re the test needed to be applied for court to order provisional measures - basically there would be asymmetry in effect if orders are made and the test according to case law is not met for such orders

9) Sa’s application is malicious and designed only to tar the reputation of Israel

 
Top