Debate and consensus is the point of the UN. However, the US continues to use its veto in the UNSC to block resolutions related to Israel… Consequences are indeed needed, but I wouldn’t be quick to blame the UN as such.

Israel is slowly losing the support it needs to get away with this genocide…

Well said. Lawful engagement is the only way if anyone is going to hold that kind of power. American hegemony has proven itself thoroughly hypocritical, time and time again. It’s attack dog in the middle east is holding the leash. Rule of law must reign - but never forget its our collective responsibility to write and uphold just laws for the collective.

Source?

I veto you proposal. Moving on. (/s, obviously)

Source?

The article only left me more confused as to why or how that happened…

Ummm. Source?

Literally in the Israeli Times article you linked:

We are both killing the terrorists who participated and killing the terrorists who will want to commit terror in the future,” Halevi told troops and commanders of the 5th Reserve Brigade

This is some Minority Report shit. Israel must have some psychics in their “Precrime” Police devision.

Like, are we all too desensitized to the insane shit being said that this is somehow normal and ok to just be published without comment in a newspaper?

Is the article you linked implying that criticism of Israel is just anti-American propaganda? That the people criticizing Israel just don’t know what they’re talking about?

The article you linked is an article from early November 2023. This article from NPR, published on the same day as the NYT article you linked, talks about Israel invading North Gaza with a force too small to occupy the city. The authors wonder how such a small ground force could be used to hold and control the city.

As it turns out, the IDF had no plans of holding it. They planned to erase it.

It’s something rather uncomplicated if you look at it through the lens of settler colonialism. This is been Noam Chomsky’s project for decades if you’re interested in looking deeper into it. But yes the bad blood and the bad faith arguments run deep.

Yes, but at this point it literally could not look any more like a genocide. By every legal mechanism possible at this point, any stronger wording could not be possible. By that logic, genocide can only happen in the past, after a trial has made an official ruling.

The trial has begun, and was overwhelming voted as having merit. I don’t know what more anyone could want here. We’re staring down a live-streamed extermination and debating the wording we can use to describe it.

If the ICJ rules this a genocide in the future, the actions taken by its alies right now could ammount to assisting in their genocide.

I mean the preliminary ruling couldn’t have found anything more than what they said: that Israel’s actions in Gaza could plausibly ammount to genocide. Canada, and all countries, have a responsibility to stop genocides before they happen. The ICJ condemned the mass killing of civilians by the IDF in no unclear terms. The ICJ condemned the blocks to humanitarian aid entering Gaza in no unclear terms. The ICJ quoted statements by the Israeli minister of defence from multiple addresses as having plausible genocidal intent.

Be it a #genuine genocide or not, hiding behind the preliminary aspect of the ruling doesn’t absolve Israel, the US, Canada, or the world of its responsibility to take action to stop clear crimes against humanity committed by the IDF that could plausibly amount to genocide, and that are being perpetrated with western supplied weapons.

We collectively have the power and responsibility to pressure Israel to respect international law.

What are you basing that on? And is it a meaningful distinction? Bombs sure as hell don’t discriminate based on politics…

Missing a ‘w’ or a comma.

Shireen Abu Akleh. There’s a video showing what happened leading up to her death.