Thank you for this concise explanation of each of the measures. I'm still scratching my head and wondering what the heck is wrong with the Ugandan Judge Sebutinde. She voted against every measure, which is more than the ad hoc Israeli judge did!
I am not sure, unless it is an intra-African thing and she is actually opposed to South Africa. There is definitely something going on that has nothing to do with the law.
In her rationale she explained that she did not think there was sufficient grounds to demonstrate intent on Israel's part, which is why she said she voted against.
Well, we know that cannot be true. That was probably the strongest part of ZA's case. She also wrote that "I also must agree that any “genocidal intent” alleged by the Applicant is negated by (1) Israel’s restricted and targeted attacks of legitimate military targets in Gaza; (2) its mitigation of civilian harm by warning them through leaflets, radio messages and telephone calls of impending attacks; and (3) its facilitation of humanitarian assistance. "
I mean, that is a joke. "restricted and targeted attacks"???
"Legitimate military targets"???
I bet she got paid a lot of money by Israel or its proxies to dissent just so Israel could point to her dissension and use it as an excuse to ignore the finding.
Let's examine the facts. 1. In such a small and populated area I do not think restricted/targeted attacks are possible, but even if they were, Israel has used the biggest, least targeting bombs around, including those that the U.S. has stopped using because of how indiscriminantly destructive they are. I think what is actually mean with this statement comes down to the words 'legitimate military targets'. Israeli officials have been extremely clear in saying that they regard everything and everyone in Gaza to be a legitimate target.
2. They did drop leaflets, although they have been bombing the areas that they told civilians to flee to. Phone calls I haven't really heard much about, but seeing the destruction of all infrastructure there, including blackouts, that seems unlikely to be effective, assuming it happened at all.
3. The UN has been saying for months now that they are unable to get any assistance to Gaza, and all the assistance has to go past a handful of Israeli checkpoints. The court has also ordered Israel to let those through, so you would think that it wouldn't be an issue voting FOR that part of the order?
This is, as far as I'm aware, the situation. I have not mentioned the many videos that show Israeli politicians and soldiers expressing dehumanising and, well, genocidal or at the very least murderous language, invoking the horrific fire bombing of Dresden in WW2 and calling then "Amalek", a people from scripture seen as the enemy of the Jews, for which there is a commandment in Judaism to wipe them out.
Considering all this, and trying to be as reasonable as I can, I struggle to come up with legimitate reasons to find merit in her arguments.
No, her arguments are entirely without merit. She is obviously and blatantly acting in a political way - she even voted against a ruling that the Israeli judge voted for! No, there is absolutely no grounds for her dissent, and she is obviously lying. Although as I said, I dopn't think she wrote her dissent. It is a joke. She is saying that "the sky is not blue, water is not wet, and sugar is not sweet."
Thank you for this concise explanation of each of the measures. I'm still scratching my head and wondering what the heck is wrong with the Ugandan Judge Sebutinde. She voted against every measure, which is more than the ad hoc Israeli judge did!
I am not sure, unless it is an intra-African thing and she is actually opposed to South Africa. There is definitely something going on that has nothing to do with the law.
In her rationale she explained that she did not think there was sufficient grounds to demonstrate intent on Israel's part, which is why she said she voted against.
Well, we know that cannot be true. That was probably the strongest part of ZA's case. She also wrote that "I also must agree that any “genocidal intent” alleged by the Applicant is negated by (1) Israel’s restricted and targeted attacks of legitimate military targets in Gaza; (2) its mitigation of civilian harm by warning them through leaflets, radio messages and telephone calls of impending attacks; and (3) its facilitation of humanitarian assistance. "
I mean, that is a joke. "restricted and targeted attacks"???
"Legitimate military targets"???
I bet she got paid a lot of money by Israel or its proxies to dissent just so Israel could point to her dissension and use it as an excuse to ignore the finding.
Interesting, had not come across that yet.
Let's examine the facts. 1. In such a small and populated area I do not think restricted/targeted attacks are possible, but even if they were, Israel has used the biggest, least targeting bombs around, including those that the U.S. has stopped using because of how indiscriminantly destructive they are. I think what is actually mean with this statement comes down to the words 'legitimate military targets'. Israeli officials have been extremely clear in saying that they regard everything and everyone in Gaza to be a legitimate target.
2. They did drop leaflets, although they have been bombing the areas that they told civilians to flee to. Phone calls I haven't really heard much about, but seeing the destruction of all infrastructure there, including blackouts, that seems unlikely to be effective, assuming it happened at all.
3. The UN has been saying for months now that they are unable to get any assistance to Gaza, and all the assistance has to go past a handful of Israeli checkpoints. The court has also ordered Israel to let those through, so you would think that it wouldn't be an issue voting FOR that part of the order?
This is, as far as I'm aware, the situation. I have not mentioned the many videos that show Israeli politicians and soldiers expressing dehumanising and, well, genocidal or at the very least murderous language, invoking the horrific fire bombing of Dresden in WW2 and calling then "Amalek", a people from scripture seen as the enemy of the Jews, for which there is a commandment in Judaism to wipe them out.
Considering all this, and trying to be as reasonable as I can, I struggle to come up with legimitate reasons to find merit in her arguments.
No, her arguments are entirely without merit. She is obviously and blatantly acting in a political way - she even voted against a ruling that the Israeli judge voted for! No, there is absolutely no grounds for her dissent, and she is obviously lying. Although as I said, I dopn't think she wrote her dissent. It is a joke. She is saying that "the sky is not blue, water is not wet, and sugar is not sweet."