Much is being said about former ICJ President Joan Donoghue's interview in @BBCHARDtalk, particularly her view that the ICJ "did not find a plausible case of genocide". A few thoughts 🧵
The first thing I thought, honestly, is what on Earth is Judge Donoghue doing in @BBCHARDtalk giving an interview?? At several points of the interview she has to excuse herself from answering questions because she is fully aware that her answer can unduly influence the case
At one point, she is asked what was the most important evidence the Court relied on to arrive at its decision (!!) and she says argues that the "most authortative" sources where statements from "senior Israeli officials"
I know I keep comparing the Columbia encampment to the 2022-23 protests in Peru, but it's just that it's such a deja vu for me. During the protests, social media also flooded with videos of these dangerous and scary "terrorists" who needed to be stopped violently🧵
In Peru we have a lot of experience with what we call "terruqueo". To "terruquear" is to falsely accuse someone of being a terrorist/terrorist sympathiser as a means to delegitimise them. You can read more about it in this excellent piece by @FelineFreier americasquarterly.org/article/terruq…
Terruqueo is often picked up by hegemonic media to paint entire groups as dangerous and violent, usually through use of isolated videos and news-stories that "confirm" the accusation in peoples' minds. Scary videos of scary-looking people = everyone is a terrorist
Having grown up in Peru, a society traumatised by the brutality of the Shining Path, the societal process @ori_goldberg describes is very familiar to me. Vulnerability/insecurity are powerful forces that trigger primal responses. Many just want to “kill them all”. Some thoughts🧵
This is a very famous video in Peru, taken in the aftermath of the 1992 Tarata bombing that killed 25 people and injured 250 (inc. friends of mine). A man standing outside the burning ruins of Tarata tower says “those SoBs need to be killed, exterminated”
I can say pretty confidently that this was (and to a large degree still is) the preponderant approach to the Shining Path in Peru. The motto is/was “human rights are for righteous humans” - and terrorists are not righteous (or human).
I don't think it's nonsense, but I do think it does not prove its point. If the argument is that Israel is protecting civilians, then the 2 central arguments made here would be insufficient under international humanitarian law. Some thoughts below🧵
The 2 main arguments made here are 1) that "90% of casualties in modern war are civilians", so Israel is "below average", and 2) that Israel actually takes "unprecedented steps" to prevent civilian casualties. Let's look at each through the prism of the applicable law
1) "90% civilian deaths"
I've explained before why this claim is misleading. It is based on a press release (SC/14904) of a UN Report (UN Doc. S/2022/381). Using this text to establish a sort of normal ratio for Gaza is not correct press.un.org/en/2022/sc1490…
Identifying an armed man is not enough to turn a clearly marked aid convoy into a target. This is the same twisted logic used for al-Shifa, where any kind of military use means there are no more limits to Israel’s actions. It is wrong. IHL still applies /1
For starters, the presence of an armed man is not enough, considering aid convoys (and @PalestineRCS ambulances, might I add) need security when they operate in a war zone. Israel needs to identify the presence of a member of Hamas or someone directly participating in hostilities
Once this has been confirmed, then Israel needs to determine what is the military advantage gained by killing this one armed person and whether the civilian harm of killing 7 other people is proportional. As the fact stands, I don’t think so.
I'm being frequently asked to offer clarity on what is legal and illegal under international humanitarian law. In this thread I will try to offer some clarity in the hopes that folks find it useful.🧵
In armed conflict against non-state actors, to lawfully target a person, states need to verify that the target is "directly participating in hostilities". Militaries and humanitarian actors disagree on what this means in practice, but there are some basic minimum standards
The basic rule, of course, is that civilians are not targets. Art. 51(3) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which is also undisputably a customary rule applicable to all armed conflicts, is clear. They therefore need to be "distinguished" from combatants