USA ๐บ๐ธ
(at 1:36:00)
"heartbroken and horrified" by Rafah attack
"do more to protect innocent Palestinian lives" and conduct an investigation
"Israel has a right to defend itself" but has "obligations to protect civilians"
"Israel must do more" webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Sierra Leone ๐ธ๐ฑ
must "secure a ceasefire"
Rafah operation "exacerbated situation"
There are "breaches of IL" in Rafah
"condemns" Rafah attack. IHL must be complied. "Respect and protect civilians and civilian objects" webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Switzerland ๐จ๐ญ
"outraged" by the events. "condemn" Hamas' indiscriminate attacks. "strongly condemns" the Israeli strike in Rafah.
IHL requires parties to distinguish civilian/military objects; take precautions in attack
"opposition" to Rafah operation webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
France ๐ซ๐ท
"calls for a ceasefire" and expresses "opposition to Israeli operation in Rafah" - operation must end "without delay". Expresses "indignation" with Rafah attack. Israel must "immediately halt its military offensive". Condemns Oct 7 and rockets webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Russia ๐ท๐บ
"Bloody military operation of 7 months"
"Israel continues to indiscriminately bomb" Rafah despite the ICJ/UNSC
Rafah "condemned by absolute majority of intl community"
"we condemn" Rafah "war crimes". Israel must comply with IHL webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Japan ๐ฏ๐ต
"unimaginable suffering", "starvation and disease on the rise", "no safe space in Gaza".
"Opposes full scale military operation in Gaza"
Calls for ceasefire
(does not specifically refer to the May 26 attack)
Slovenia ๐ธ๐ฎ
rejects military operations in Gaza
"our worst fears [re Rafah] have come true" due to the attack.
"Firmly condemns the strike on displaced persons in Rafah"
Rafah strike not an isolated event. Violations not being investigated webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Ecuador ๐ช๐จ
"Images [from Rafah attack] are difficult to forget", "time to put an end to the cycle of violence" webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Guyana ๐ฌ๐พ
"Displaced Palestinians sheltering in tents were set on fire after Israeli airstrikes"
"there is no safe place in Gaza". Calls for swift independent int'l investigation.
"no justification for killing of innocent civilians" webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
South Korea ๐ฐ๐ท
"Israel claims that the killing of dozens of civilians in tents ... was a tragic mistake, but when such instances are repeated again and again... it would be difficult to regard them as just mistakes" webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
UK ๐ฌ๐ง
"appalled by the deeply distressing scenes emerging from Rafah following Israeli airstrikes"
"call on Israel to launch swift comprehensive and transparent investigation"
"do not support" military operation in Rafah without a humanitarian plan webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Algeria ๐ฉ๐ฟ
"Haunting images from Gaza flood our screens"
"If they don't steer the spirit of humanity in all of us then words will be useless"
Israel "continues to cover up murders and commit what they say are tragic mistakes" webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Mozambique ๐ฒ๐ฟ
Resulting global outrage and condemnation [of Rafah attack] further enhances Israel's int'l isolation.
"condemn Rafah operation"
Israeli offensive "blatant violation of all laws of war" webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Palestine ๐ต๐ธ
instead of halting its offensive Israel "has bombed people it has displaced". It is unbearable "to hold a beheaded child in your arms". "Unbearable human suffering". "There is no red line imposed by legality that Israel has not crossed" webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
Rafah attack was a "precise strike", done with "extensive verification to avoid civilian casualties". "Fire broke out due to secondary explosions from terror munitions". "It is Hamas who must be held accountable". webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
UAE ๐ฆ๐ช
(on behalf of Arab Group)
The Rafah attacks are "unspeakable" and require "special condemnation". "The heinous massacre ... is merely the latest episode in this series of systematic war crimes against Palestinian people". Israel has defied IL webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1k/kโฆ
France ๐ซ๐ท
(Already summarised this one above, but putting it here since it is easier to access than finding it in a 2 hour long live feed of the UNSC meeting)
The nominal debate about sexual organs is a rather dumb one. You either think gender is assigned or innate and frankly that is of little consequence. The consequential discussion is why you think that: itโs either fragile masculinity or concern over safety in private spaces /1
IMO the latter is the only valid reason. I donโt care if a dude is scared that he will โaccidentallyโ be attracted to a trans woman and hit on her. Deal with your own insecurities without trampling on other peopleโs rights. But safety in private spaces or fairness in sports? Sure
Hereโs the thing though: safety and fairness are not โtrans issuesโ. A fully cis male bathroom can be unsafe for a little boy (hi Catholic Church). Privacy concerns can be addressed with lockable personal booths. Transness is not the reason why private spaces can be unsafe
Piers Morgan approaches taxonomy as an ontological phenomenon. Categories are objective, universal and true. He never worries whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit, humans have perfectly taxonomized nature and categories never overlap. Hence he thinks this is a clever gotcha
The problem is @EdwardJDavey apparently agrees with him, but has to assume a pro trans position for political reasons. So he is confronted with an impossible problem: his categories are ontological, but his position is not. He cannot resolve the conflict and this is the result
Gender theory and feminism are not about ontological categories. Women are *not* ontologically (by the very fact of being women) the "weaker sex"; they don't "belong in the kitchen"; or "born to be mothers". This is why de Beauvoir said one is not โborn a woman, but becomes oneโ
Unsurprisingly, Elliotโs conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the applicable law. The statement โinference to genocide requires that no other reasonable explanation existโ isโฆ letโs say inexact.
The applicable test is not โcan you *explain* what Israel is doing *as a whole* through any reasonable explanation other than genocideโ, but rather whether intent to destroy can be reasonably inferred from a specific pattern of conduct
So saying โit is more reasonable to explain Israelโs actions as trying to destroy Hamas and save hostages, than commiting genocideโ is not really what the test requires. What is the specific pattern of conduct that Elliot is examining here? None. He is making an abstract argument
This is what I call โlegal vulturingโ. Salo loiters above the text looking for anything he can slap a red underline and claim โhe is the only one who noticedโ. Itโs bad faith work that deserves no serious engagement. So let me treat this like the piece of disinformation it is ๐งต
Salo claims there is a secret paragraph 141 that scholars ignore on purpose to deny Israel a right to self defence. But article 141 is part of a subsection of the Opinion dealing specifically with self-defence. It goes from ยง138 to ยง142.
As Salo shows, in ยง139, the ICJ concludes that art. 51 of the UN Charter, which sets out the right of self defence, is not applicable to Israelโs actions in Palestine because
1) the threat it claims is not imputable to a state and article 51 only applies between states
So far Iโve seen the ongoing collapse of US hegemony as a protracted process of imperial decline, driven by a rally-to-the-flag retreat from the world known as โMAGAโ. But now Iโm wondering if that rally to the flag will actually lead to a much more violent and sudden process
The US has a heavily armed population which lacks access to mental healthcare and social safety nets. Increasingly, the random and senseless school shooting is being overshadowed by the targeted political assassination as the go-to โexhaust ventโ of these social processes
Obviously, this is terrible. A Democratic representative, a healthcare CEO, a conservative commentator and the attempted assassination of the current president canโt be dismissed anymore as fluke accidents. Arguably, some are choosing to do this instead of mass shootings
The IDFโs new international hasbara law excuse to justify imposing conditions of life that make civilian life in Gaza impossible seems to be that the military advantage of destroying a camera justifies the โincidentalโ civilian harm of dozens of homes destroyed
Imagine for a second this logic replayed for residential buildings in Tel Aviv. Thereโs security cameras managed by the city hall on top of the building and a Palestinian group is planning to attack the city. Thus, so the IDF does not use it, they blow up the whole building
It would be deemed one of the worst terrorist attacks in Israelโs history. An act of โbarbarismโ that should be condemned again and again. The logic behind it โoh but we wanted to make average Israelis turn on the IDF so we need to pummel Tel Avivโ would be deemed insane