The struggle over Palestine, which has killed innocents unjustly for my entire, long life, has always seemed to ebb and flow with the rise and fall of political factions within Israel.
The harsh Israeli statements that you reference seem geared to appease hard-line factions within Israel.
The drive to remain in power triumphs reason often, and sometimes, even morality.
I sometimes wonder what alternate reality would govern the Middle East if the Iranian Green Movement in 2009 would have succeeded.
Israel also has a lot of exculpatory evidence, like evacuation warnings and ongoing humanitarian aid exceptions to the general blockade. Plus there's the fact that Hamas hasn't left Israel much in the way of alternate options for how to prosecute the war.
I mean, the South African government will take any distraction they can get to steer eyeballs away from their chronic domestic mismanagement issues, so the ICJ case serves its intended purpose as a publicity stunt regardless of whether it goes anywhere
It is more about the credibility of the individual jurists no one wants to co-sign a case that is obviously not going anywhere or that their peers would think is clearly meritless. Regarding the political angle you should read Unspoken Alliance by Sasha Polokow Suransky. Blood runs deep between Israel and South Africa.
The ICJ is ultimately an arm of the UN, where every Hail Mary condemnation of Israel gets wide support. Case merits didn't stop the Russian and Chinese jurists from siding against Ukraines case at the ICJ when the Russian invasion was litigated.
UN has a bit of a Third Worldist bias which manifests negatively for Israel which has not comfortably fit itself into one bloc or the other at this stage of its history.
Which makes it likely SA will win at ICJ, but also makes it unlikely the ICJ ruling will have any more impact than the dozens of other condemnations of Israel the UN churns out each year.
Throughout the history of humanity, ever since the first humans emerged, there has never been a situation where two armies are fighting and one army provides food and fuel to the enemy army that is killing its children and raping its women. Such sick humanistic behavior can only be found among Jews. Therefore, accusations of genocide are absurd and ridiculous, but it is true that Israel behaves insanely and sickly, but from the opposite perspective of yours.
You might find it surprising being unfamiliar with history of other peoples and places but it’s not true at all. I will give you personal example from very recently when I was covering ISIS war the Iraqi government continued to pay all the government salaries of people living in Mosul and other ISIS-held cities even knowing that some of the money would be funneled back to ISIS or their supporters and be used to resist their coming assaults. They did it because they didn’t want the civilian population to starve which would happen if no salaries were paid. So unfortunately you are not as special as you are thinking it is common practice outside of medieval era of full sieges or practices of total pariah regimes today.
The comparison is not correct. The Iraqi government gave money to what it considered its citizens being held by ISIS. This is similar to Israel transferring food to its captives, even knowing that some of it will be taken by Hamas. Here, we're talking about transferring food and fuel to a population that is unrelated to Israel and hates Israel and supports Hamas.
There is a measure of difference but it was a common sentiment in the Iraqi government that the citizens of Mosul were guilty particularly in their rage after the Camp Speicher massacre. Israel is constrained in the sense that it is reliant on goodwill of international community and U.S. so has to adapt some of their norms. If Israel were part of the Arab League or BRICS as I alluded they could and would probably get away with full starvation sieges as Syria did during the war; it doesn’t seem like Israelis are exactly happy with having to do this. But again as long as there is no Palestinian state they will likely not be able to enter these Eurasianist blocs where they can do as they please.
That's a fair response. I suppose the Trump administration wouldn't have required Israel to transfer fuel to Hamas (food would have been transferred anyway). And perhaps that's exactly why such an event didn't happen under Trump. Hamas wouldn't have dared. Despite his significant flaws, he maintained peace in the world better than Biden.
I think that Trump still would have stopped a full siege because the U.S. does not have imperial presidency and president is still heavily constrained by views of legal bureaucracy and military officials who would oppose such a move not to mention partisan political and media pressure. It is just in nature of U.S. although Trump administration is a bit more hawkish and you may be right are more likely to preemptively deter threats but this can only be assumption outside of more transparency in other side decision making.
I agree with you. Starving civilians would also have been impossible anyway in terms of Israeli public opinion itself. But the issue of transferring fuel is different.
The fact is that Israel (I mean the government, society and individuals) never intended to commit genocide. There were calls from individual politicians (without approval or any action), apolitical and simply marginal individuals to destroy the enemies as they see them.
If you lived in Israel, you could not imagine that this could happen. Israel is more democratic than many European countries, and any signs of genocide will be condemned by at least 80% of the population, among whom there are many left-wing supporters of peace on any, even suicidal, terms, Arabs, supporters of the peaceful existence of all peoples and simply people with critical thinking. There may be another 18% of pragmatists who will not shout loudly against genocide, but understand that it harms the state.
Therefore, the “case” against Israel is fabricated using phrases and slogans taken from texts that are presented as intentions. Not a single order, not a single action aimed at genocide.
And the fact that Israel’s opponents have long called “genocidal” actions to ensure the safety of its citizens is not new.
I think it is not news that some other country in the same situation would behave much harsher than Israel.
This is just not true. The calls were not from marginal or apolitical people, they were from the most senior political and military figures in the country and made publicly in full view of everyone. They were then echoed all up and down the chain of command and even referenced by soldiers filming themselves carrying out the orders in Gaza. You are assuming a comforting vision of Israel that does not exist; the actual Israel that we can see verifiably now is much more radical and extreme in its practices and is more akin to Russia or Syria than a Western European country.
You can say it's not true five times, you can say it ten times, you can tweet and link, but I live in Israel. And I'm talking about what's happening. I saw soldiers leaving to fight. These are our children. For me, these are children who, during times of danger, left their jobs, families, children and went to protect us. We are Israelis. It's not just Jews, it's Arabs, Druze, Muslims and Christians. They protect us. From childhood they know what human life is, and part of their education is not to take a person’s life unnecessarily. They know what war is because attacks and shelling happen about twice a year.
I heard calls to destroy enemies, but not a single commander gave the order to kill someone who did not pose a threat. You won’t understand, but the actions of the army are monitored by the legal system and no violation can be hidden longer than writing an article on one of the news portals.
The army is transparent and therefore everything that is said is distorted and presented as “genocide”. It's a lie.
Yes, I heard calls for reprisals against some clans and families in the Gaza Strip, but they were spoken by Bedouin family elders who claimed revenge for the deaths of several Bedouins. This also does not look like genocide and, most likely, will not be carried out.
In case you're wondering, I'm not Jewish and I'm well aware of the difference between Israel and Russia. There is not just nothing in common here, they are two opposites.
If you continue to live in captivity of narratives and distortions, then I will not interfere. But I take responsibility for every written word and can confirm them with hundreds of examples, of which there are many in my life.
I respect your perspective and experience, but I never said that there was a general issuance of genocidal statement from the general public. There were very specific cases from senior political and military officials which make up the basis of the ICJ trial. You or others would have to explain why those statements are now what they seem to be to avoid a guilty verdict at the trial.
But if an official is not part of the chain of command, then they are ultimately a bystander. Someone like Smotrich or Ben-Gvir can't issue any orders to the IDF, so their statements are that of bystanders.
It seems like based on the South African filing many of the statements now being litigated came from people with military authority or who were in the war cabinet. The argument of Israel’s ICJ lawyers seems to be that the statements were made but not intended literally.
I wrote my opinion and my vision of what is happening. That's all.
This is regardless of how the defense will perform in court and how the trial will end.
I really liked your article, otherwise I would not have written my post.
I apologize for the fact that there are a lot of words. It would be easier to write that in my opinion there is no genocide. But such words require explanation.
Very analytical which I appreciate
Thank you, Murtaza.
The struggle over Palestine, which has killed innocents unjustly for my entire, long life, has always seemed to ebb and flow with the rise and fall of political factions within Israel.
The harsh Israeli statements that you reference seem geared to appease hard-line factions within Israel.
The drive to remain in power triumphs reason often, and sometimes, even morality.
I sometimes wonder what alternate reality would govern the Middle East if the Iranian Green Movement in 2009 would have succeeded.
Thank you Brenda. I agree so many missed possible off-ramps.
Israel also has a lot of exculpatory evidence, like evacuation warnings and ongoing humanitarian aid exceptions to the general blockade. Plus there's the fact that Hamas hasn't left Israel much in the way of alternate options for how to prosecute the war.
If they had prosecuted the war exactly the same way but not made these statements I don’t think they would be in front of the ICJ.
I mean, the South African government will take any distraction they can get to steer eyeballs away from their chronic domestic mismanagement issues, so the ICJ case serves its intended purpose as a publicity stunt regardless of whether it goes anywhere
It is more about the credibility of the individual jurists no one wants to co-sign a case that is obviously not going anywhere or that their peers would think is clearly meritless. Regarding the political angle you should read Unspoken Alliance by Sasha Polokow Suransky. Blood runs deep between Israel and South Africa.
The ICJ is ultimately an arm of the UN, where every Hail Mary condemnation of Israel gets wide support. Case merits didn't stop the Russian and Chinese jurists from siding against Ukraines case at the ICJ when the Russian invasion was litigated.
UN has a bit of a Third Worldist bias which manifests negatively for Israel which has not comfortably fit itself into one bloc or the other at this stage of its history.
Which makes it likely SA will win at ICJ, but also makes it unlikely the ICJ ruling will have any more impact than the dozens of other condemnations of Israel the UN churns out each year.
Throughout the history of humanity, ever since the first humans emerged, there has never been a situation where two armies are fighting and one army provides food and fuel to the enemy army that is killing its children and raping its women. Such sick humanistic behavior can only be found among Jews. Therefore, accusations of genocide are absurd and ridiculous, but it is true that Israel behaves insanely and sickly, but from the opposite perspective of yours.
You might find it surprising being unfamiliar with history of other peoples and places but it’s not true at all. I will give you personal example from very recently when I was covering ISIS war the Iraqi government continued to pay all the government salaries of people living in Mosul and other ISIS-held cities even knowing that some of the money would be funneled back to ISIS or their supporters and be used to resist their coming assaults. They did it because they didn’t want the civilian population to starve which would happen if no salaries were paid. So unfortunately you are not as special as you are thinking it is common practice outside of medieval era of full sieges or practices of total pariah regimes today.
It may help you understand how unusual Israel's behavior is. https://ww2days.com/japan-targeted-for-starvation-2.html
The comparison is not correct. The Iraqi government gave money to what it considered its citizens being held by ISIS. This is similar to Israel transferring food to its captives, even knowing that some of it will be taken by Hamas. Here, we're talking about transferring food and fuel to a population that is unrelated to Israel and hates Israel and supports Hamas.
There is a measure of difference but it was a common sentiment in the Iraqi government that the citizens of Mosul were guilty particularly in their rage after the Camp Speicher massacre. Israel is constrained in the sense that it is reliant on goodwill of international community and U.S. so has to adapt some of their norms. If Israel were part of the Arab League or BRICS as I alluded they could and would probably get away with full starvation sieges as Syria did during the war; it doesn’t seem like Israelis are exactly happy with having to do this. But again as long as there is no Palestinian state they will likely not be able to enter these Eurasianist blocs where they can do as they please.
That's a fair response. I suppose the Trump administration wouldn't have required Israel to transfer fuel to Hamas (food would have been transferred anyway). And perhaps that's exactly why such an event didn't happen under Trump. Hamas wouldn't have dared. Despite his significant flaws, he maintained peace in the world better than Biden.
I think that Trump still would have stopped a full siege because the U.S. does not have imperial presidency and president is still heavily constrained by views of legal bureaucracy and military officials who would oppose such a move not to mention partisan political and media pressure. It is just in nature of U.S. although Trump administration is a bit more hawkish and you may be right are more likely to preemptively deter threats but this can only be assumption outside of more transparency in other side decision making.
I agree with you. Starving civilians would also have been impossible anyway in terms of Israeli public opinion itself. But the issue of transferring fuel is different.
The fact is that Israel (I mean the government, society and individuals) never intended to commit genocide. There were calls from individual politicians (without approval or any action), apolitical and simply marginal individuals to destroy the enemies as they see them.
If you lived in Israel, you could not imagine that this could happen. Israel is more democratic than many European countries, and any signs of genocide will be condemned by at least 80% of the population, among whom there are many left-wing supporters of peace on any, even suicidal, terms, Arabs, supporters of the peaceful existence of all peoples and simply people with critical thinking. There may be another 18% of pragmatists who will not shout loudly against genocide, but understand that it harms the state.
Therefore, the “case” against Israel is fabricated using phrases and slogans taken from texts that are presented as intentions. Not a single order, not a single action aimed at genocide.
And the fact that Israel’s opponents have long called “genocidal” actions to ensure the safety of its citizens is not new.
I think it is not news that some other country in the same situation would behave much harsher than Israel.
This is just not true. The calls were not from marginal or apolitical people, they were from the most senior political and military figures in the country and made publicly in full view of everyone. They were then echoed all up and down the chain of command and even referenced by soldiers filming themselves carrying out the orders in Gaza. You are assuming a comforting vision of Israel that does not exist; the actual Israel that we can see verifiably now is much more radical and extreme in its practices and is more akin to Russia or Syria than a Western European country.
You can say it's not true five times, you can say it ten times, you can tweet and link, but I live in Israel. And I'm talking about what's happening. I saw soldiers leaving to fight. These are our children. For me, these are children who, during times of danger, left their jobs, families, children and went to protect us. We are Israelis. It's not just Jews, it's Arabs, Druze, Muslims and Christians. They protect us. From childhood they know what human life is, and part of their education is not to take a person’s life unnecessarily. They know what war is because attacks and shelling happen about twice a year.
I heard calls to destroy enemies, but not a single commander gave the order to kill someone who did not pose a threat. You won’t understand, but the actions of the army are monitored by the legal system and no violation can be hidden longer than writing an article on one of the news portals.
The army is transparent and therefore everything that is said is distorted and presented as “genocide”. It's a lie.
Yes, I heard calls for reprisals against some clans and families in the Gaza Strip, but they were spoken by Bedouin family elders who claimed revenge for the deaths of several Bedouins. This also does not look like genocide and, most likely, will not be carried out.
In case you're wondering, I'm not Jewish and I'm well aware of the difference between Israel and Russia. There is not just nothing in common here, they are two opposites.
If you continue to live in captivity of narratives and distortions, then I will not interfere. But I take responsibility for every written word and can confirm them with hundreds of examples, of which there are many in my life.
I respect your perspective and experience, but I never said that there was a general issuance of genocidal statement from the general public. There were very specific cases from senior political and military officials which make up the basis of the ICJ trial. You or others would have to explain why those statements are now what they seem to be to avoid a guilty verdict at the trial.
But if an official is not part of the chain of command, then they are ultimately a bystander. Someone like Smotrich or Ben-Gvir can't issue any orders to the IDF, so their statements are that of bystanders.
It seems like based on the South African filing many of the statements now being litigated came from people with military authority or who were in the war cabinet. The argument of Israel’s ICJ lawyers seems to be that the statements were made but not intended literally.
I wrote my opinion and my vision of what is happening. That's all.
This is regardless of how the defense will perform in court and how the trial will end.
I really liked your article, otherwise I would not have written my post.
I apologize for the fact that there are a lot of words. It would be easier to write that in my opinion there is no genocide. But such words require explanation.
Thank you for reading I appreciate your perspective and I hope others will read your comments as well.
Anyone who “self-publishes” on their substack, needs to stay their “articles” or “exposees” with…
“Dear Diary…”