1mo ago

All countries who signed and ratified the 1948 UN convention of Genocide (General Assembly resolution 260 A) are by definition of UN charter OBLIGED to do what ever means necessary to stop the ongoing

All countries who signed and ratified the 1948 UN convention of Genocide (General Assembly resolution 260 A) are by definition of UN charter OBLIGED to do what ever means necessary to stop the ongoing genocide.

The text of the declaration is clear, so is the 72 pages report declaring Israel actions in Gaza as an act of genocide.
But so far, not a single county has done anything to react on this.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide
Gaza #StopIsrael
palestine #Israel #Genocide
@palestine@lemmy.ml
@palestine@fedibird.com

Palestine @lemmy.dbzer0.com

cm0002 @lemmy.world

1mo ago

14 comments

But so far, not a single county has done anything to react on this.
Except Yemen.
- @redrumBot
  sadly true. but Yemen was not a signatory of the Genocide convention.
  their resistance against Israel has been going on since the fist day of the genocide, like Hezbollah, they are paying a heavy price for their actions
  
  I fully agree, but Yemen has ratified the convention, it's in dark green in the posted image.
  Also, we should remember that states complicit with the genocide (USA, UK, Australia, Canada…) started a war against Yemen to stop them from exercising their obligation to try to protect a nation under genocide.
This has been the case ever since the ICJ order from 26 January 2024. Instead, just a few days after the ruling, many signatories froze payments to UNRWA or scrapped them completely, as a reaction to mere allegations of Israel, that UNWRA workers have been part of the attack on October 7th. Thereby they have clearly violated the court order and are punishable under the same Genocide convention.
The court order points that out explicitly:
The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article I of the Convention, all States parties thereto have undertaken “to prevent and to punish” the crime of genocide, that is to say any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group (Article II, para. (a)); causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (Article II, para. (b)); deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (Article II, para. (c)); imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (Article II, para. (d)); forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (Article II, para. (e)). Pursuant to Article III of the Genocide Convention, the following acts are also prohibited by the Convention: conspiracy to commit genocide (Article III, para. (b)), direct and public incitement to commit genocide (Article III, para. (c)), attempt to commit genocide (Article III, para. (d)) and complicity in genocide (Article III, para. (e)).
Too bad we live in an age of blatant lawlessness.
- Too bad we live in an age of blatant lawlessness.
  it was always blatant; it's just the many were fooled into believing that it wasn't for a time because they were taught to believe that only our enemies were doing it.
- @AliSaket
  Excellent point, but again, the big difference between ICJ ruling and UN report is that ICJ ruling was against individuals and not many countries are part of ICJ.
  UN report put the blame on stare of Israel as a nation. And anyone who is part of the UN and ratified (not just signed) the UNGA resolution 260A has to follow UN charter.
  But as you said , we live in a lawless world or TBH a highly hypocritic world.
  And Israel seems to be completely outside of any international rules
  
  @Farhad
  the big difference between ICJ ruling and UN report is that ICJ ruling was against individuals and not many countries are part of ICJ
  You might be mistaking it for the ICC (International Criminal Court). The ICJ (International Court of Justice) is the highest court ruling on international law and therefore the genocide convention of 1948. Only states can appeal to it. The order obliges Israel as a nation, not as individuals, to suspend military operations, etc. and not to commit the four out of five actions defining genocide in the convention. The wording is "The State of Israel shall (...)".
  The biggest points out of that ruling to me are:
  The Palestinians are a group protected under the convention.
  The difficult to prove point of intention is met.
  Four out of five genocidal actions are relevant.
  They order Israel and all nations to prevent genocide.
  They basically all but called it a genocide, because usually that takes time and legal mubmo-jumbo and is ruled after the fact. I'm sure that political thinking played a role too, since the ICJ has no executive power to enact its orders. They rely on compliance of the states. The big difference with the new report is that they unequivocally see all the conditions (intent and at least one action under Article 2) met to call it a genocide (even if not by a court).
Surprised the US even pretended sign it TBH. Usually when the UN has a convention with super common sense stuff in it the US is always the loudest opposition.

14 comments