- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Isn't it illegal, by their own laws, for many of these countries mentioned to sell Israel military equipment, supplies, and ammunition due to the recent ICJ ruling? Not even international law, but their own civil laws. Which should open weapons manufacturers and their governments up to civil lawsuits. I know South African lawyers plan to file such lawsuits against the USA and UK.
The pressure must be kept up against Israel. Not a moment of relief. Genocide cannot be tolerated.
So far, ICJ only ruled that there is a plausible case for Israel committing genocide. Once the case is decided, and if ICJ does rule that Israel conducted a genocide, then it most certainly will open up both countries and individual entities that facilitated the genocide to prosecution. The pressure absolutely needs to be kept up on both Israel and the states supporting it. Israel cannot do this on their own, it's the support for the west that makes the genocide possible.
Even if it's only plausible, many countries have laws on the books preventing the sale of weapons to countries under suspicion of committing genocide. I know that the UK has such a law. UK arms export licensing Rule 2c states: licences must “not grant (licenses) if there is risk …of a violation of international humanitarian law”.
So already with the ICJ's plausible ruling, many parties and countries open themselves up to lawsuits if they continue business with the Israeli military. Japan has stopped working with Israeli Elbit systems because of this, and it also led to the US pushing through their major arms deal with Israel, including 25 F-35 and 25 F-15 fighter jets, to be singed the day before the ICJ delivered their preliminary verdict.
Well, they need to make sure the ruling is final and not act on allegations without due investigation before they cut funds. You know, like they did with the UNRWA.
Are you really trying to both sides this? Firstly the law in question uses the word "risk", not "certainty" so I'm sure the ICJ ruling that there's a plausible case of genocide against Israel fits that description.
Secondly, the Western nations that cut funding from the UNRWA did so as a form of protest after Israel lost in court and as a way to de-legitimise the case against Israel, as a lot of findings in the preliminary ruling of the ICJ use UN figures as a source. They are not cutting funding from the UNRWA because they believe in Israel's "dossier of evidence" with regards to UNRWA participation in October 7, no one believes that, they are cutting funding from the UNRWA to tarnish the reputation of the ICJ, the UN and to attempt to tarnish the evidence used in the case of genocide against Israel. Because if Israel is found guilty of genocide, these nations will be complicit in that genocide. So they are simultaneously trying to cover their arses and reduce the chances of that happening through cutting funding from the UNRWA, for the reasons mentioned above.
Maybe I should have added "/s".
What I meant was to show the discrepancy in how said countries dealt with the 2 cases to show how clearly they are impartial, and are not bothered to hide it.
Not even international law, but their own civil laws.
Speaking for germany I'm unsure as to what you're getting at here on a judicial level. Any arms sale has to be approved by the parliament, as such I don't see much hope for a civil law suit here.
Wouldn't Germany selling weapons be in direct violation of this
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/krwaffkontrg/__6.html
Admittedly I'm using Google translate and my very limited knowledge of German here, but wouldn't Germany continuing to sell weapons to Israel be in violation of points 2.1, 3.1 and 3.2?
2.1
Approval may be refused in particular if... There is reason to believe that granting it would run counter to the Federal Republic's interest in maintaining good relations with other countries.
3.1
Approval is to be refused if...There is a risk that the weapons of war will be used in an act that disturbs the peace, especially in a war of aggression.
3.1 This is really interesting because it uses the word risk and not confirmed. Thus even the preliminary ruling of the ICJ should be enough to constitute risk here.
Doesn't matter, judiically. The german parliament approves it, therefore it's fine.
It's not, but I guess that's the impression you'd get when you guzzle propaganda all day long.
I just remember whenever I look at maps of "Treaty Sinatories", "UN Reolutions or "Progressive Movements Worldwide" then Nicaragua and North Korea tend to agree on most things.
I've not seen any "propaganda" one way or the other. Literally just my interpretation when looking at maps of the world and voting records.
Not really sure what point you're trying to make with that. Both Nicaragua and DPRK are resisting US aggression, and thus have common interest.
Ah yes, the liberal US empire that murders people on the industrial scale is the bastion of morality, while people who resist it are AuThoRiTariAn. The only thing that's clear is that you're a morally bankrupt individual who runs around calling people slurs.
I'm a socialist but
I sincerely suggest you learn about the DPRK's history and how it got to this stage instead of relying on western narratives and outlets; the same imperial nations that colonized the world and is currently supporting a genocide. Korea was divided in two against the people's will, and the North had 20% of its population slaughtered by the US and most of its infrastructure turned to rubble.
I recommend the third season of Blowback for its history, and perhaps documentaries like My Brothers And Sisters In The North, or Loyal Citizens of Pyongyang in Seoul
Boy Boy also made a made a cool video where they visited the DPRK.
DPRK's current issues stem from the ridiculous amounts of sanctions on it from the West (similar to Cuba and Zimbabwe; these only harm the people and destabilize the country). It was actually developing at a similar pace to, and even slightly faster than, the South before the USSR's dissolution.
Fun fact: the UN praises DPRK's robust healthcare system for being able to function so well despite the sanctions. Only possible cuz of its Socialist nature.
Edit: Also
According to Wikipedia: "Since Daniel Ortega's election in 2006, liberal democratic norms and individual rights in practice have deteriorated."
Liberal "democracies" aren't democratic in the first place; it only serves the ruling class. Just look at what the US is doing, and has always done, with the supposed "lesser evil" in power. Same goes for the rest of the imperial core. It only exists to protect capitalism.
You're so many memes in just one comment. Keep it up!
Show
I've not seen any "propaganda" one way or the other. Literally just my interpretation when looking at maps of the world
Good thing maps cannot be propaganda
I've not seen any "propaganda" one way or the other.
The fish thinks it's not submerged in water
My country, which has killed more people than any other geopolitical entity in human history and is ruled by a literal monarchy, is clearly free and egalitarian, unlike that horrific autocratic nightmare of...checks notes
...a tiny Central American nation that's been routinely bombed and exploited for its entire existence.
Yes, because I wanted some context. If North Korea brought this case I'd take a similar double-take and ask questions.
Instead of downvoting me and being snarky how about you stick to saying the first part of your comment? The part I didn't realise had changed? Perhaps build upon it by telling me how it changed recently cos I don't fucking know!
Yes, because I wanted some context. If North Korea brought this case I'd take a similar double-take and ask questions.
NK is not and has never been responsible for genocide and indeed does condemn Israel in the strongest terms. Try again, weaboo.
Derailing a thread about supporters of genocide to call Nicaragua an "autocratic shitole" is what libs would call "whataboutism."
If North Korea brought this case I'd take a similar double-take and ask questions.
What makes you think Nicaragua is similar to North Korea?
Frankly they have a very good case, should they choose to bring it.
I think you're thinking about your own country there mate. You still have a bloody monarchy, impossible to be more autocratic than that...
