A thread on Israeli journalists and "direct & public incitement to commit genocide" against Palestinians in Gaza:
In January the @CIJ_ICJ ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent & punish incitement to commit genocide. The Court "reaffirmed" this in March and May.
In South Africa's 29 May public dossier that was submitted to the UN Security Council, Annex III includes 7 pages on incitement to genocide by 5 prominent journalists and pundits.
The importance of these examples lies in the fact that they repeatedly and publicly, over 8 months, continued to incite to genocide, and genocidal acts, including as we shall see more recent examples.
Their incitement promoted the view that all Palestinian civilians in Gaza are killable, that it is permissible to target innocent civilians because they do not exist in Gaza, that all of Gaza should be wiped out.
One of those mentioned by South Africa is Shimon Riklin of Channel 14.
Recently, after the massacre in Al-Nusseirat, Riklin retweeted a long post by journalist Schlesinger that denies the existence of "uninvolved" (i.e. innocents) in Gaza (see below) and commented that destroying the entire Gaza is a religious duty.
Yehuda Schlesinger, "a reporter for Israel Hayom, one of the most widely distributed newspapers in Israel", repeatedly tweeted that there "are no innocents in Gaza" and "no ordinary civilians".
Recently, 11 June, he repeated his claim that "there are no uninvolved in Gaza" - a euphemism for "all Palestinians in Gaza are killable and deserve to be killed".
In fact, on 9 June, he wrote a quasi-manifesto seeking to show how broad and systematic is the lack of innocence and lack of civilian status in Gaza: voters, those who cheered, doctors, UNRWA workers, all 2.3 million. All not innocent.
As mentioned above, another prominent journalist Shimon Riklin concluded from this mini-manifesto that all of Gaza should be destroyed.
Another prominent journalist that South Africa includes in its submission, is Zvi Yehezkeli, who until recently worked for Channel 13.
Another example is Almog Boker of Channel 13, known for repeated calls to destroy all of Gaza and rejecting the distinction between Hamas and the civilian population.
On 9 June, Boker jumped on the rumor that a hostage was held in the house of "Al-Jazeera journalist", which Al-Jazeera denied, to repeat the mantra that the family of anyone "involved" and even their "silent" neighbours are killable.
Important to note that while Channel 14 and Israel Hayom are pro-Netanyahu outlets, Channel 13 is not, but is considered a relatively more liberal channel. Thus, the incitement to genocide extends beyond the Ben-Gvir and Netanyahu crowds.
As Israel's prominent TV “expert” on Arab and Palestinian affairs for over 2 decades, where he promoted racism against Arabs & Muslims, Yehezkeli’s statements carry a special weight and impact.
As one Haaretz journalist wrote on 28 December, Yehezkeli represents "the spirit of the time and place".
The legal importance of these examples is threefold:
1. they show Israel's lack of punishment and prevention of incitement to genocide. Quite the contrary, these prominent journalists continue to be provided with platforms to spew hatred, over 8 months.
Note that legally that a conviction of "direct & public incitement" does not require proving that the result was achieved. The content of the message is sufficient. Unless, incitement is considered as a form of "complicity in genocide", which is a separate violation.
2. They serve as another indication of Israel's violation of the ICJ provisional measures in Jan, March, and May 2024, solidifying Israel's status as a rogue state.
3. They also provide a further indication of Israel's violation of Israel's duty to prevent genocide. This duty imposes a "positive obligation" on states, meaning that they are required to act to ensure that violations of the Genocide Convention do not occur.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The 3 orders by the @CIJ_ICJ on genocide and its advisory opinion in July are hugely important, and they will be for decades to come, even if "there is no justice under US empire". A thread on law during genocide:
1. Let us first be clear on basic concepts. I heard repeatedly the phrase "juridification of resistance" in reference to ICJ cases, in recent months. What is "resistance" and how was it "juridified"? and what is the empirical evidence supporting this assertion?
A. Invoking law and rights is not juridification. Juridification is the *reduction* of one's analysis/ politics to rights discourse/ law. For example if you think that law can be a substitute for politics, when law itself a field of political contestation, and thus law has to be placed within a political vision; or if you think law can compensate for asymmetry in power outside the courtroom.
"Our findings indicate that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza is organised, systematic, and intended to destroy conditions of life and life-sustaining infrastructure."
"Our report seeks to identify patterns within this conduct between 7 October 2023 and 30 June 2024. It interrogates the scale and nature of attacks, the extent of damage and the number of victims, as well as the organised nature of the acts of violence and the improbability of their random occurrence."
How Israel's targeting of Palestinian children proves that it is committing genocide:
The powerful @nytimes article by @FerozeSidhwa and his colleagues adds to the mounting evidence that makes it irrefutable that Israel is committing genocide in Palestine, here is why:
Recall that the Genocide Convention enumerates these genocidal acts:
In @CIJ_ICJ Gambia v. Myanmar case, 6 states (Germany, UK, France, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands) argued that “the targeting of children is relevant to the determination of specific intent,” as per Art. II of the Convention, i.e. genocidal intent. icj-cij.org/sites/default/…
The history of the decades-long Israeli policy of deliberately targeting Arab and Palestinian civilians, massacring them and displacing them, is too long to tell, and preceded the Dahiya Doctrine (2006), but here are some episodes of admission:
1. Dayan and Sharon 1950s
2. Rabin 1966: "the problem was the civilians..."
3. Dayan 1968: "strike terror into the hearts of the Arabs"
If you want to know why Palestine is the litmus test for the whole post WWII international human rights system, you should, and I cannot recommend this enough, read @dirkmoses magnum opus "The Problems of Genocide", especially pages 348-363: here are some highlights:
Many of the architects of the "human rights revolution" had zionist sympathies and the in the name of human rights they justified colonialism and expulsion of the natives, the Palestinians.
The actual experts on genocide, who taught us analytical clarity, have spoken up for months against the genocide (@martinshawx, Raz Segal, William Schabas, John Quigley, and recently Omer Bartov). But the @NewLeftReview are unable to educate themselves and take a stand.
Countries that experienced genocide say this is a genocide, but the @NewLeftReview are unable to educate themselves and take a stand, they are waiting for "analytical clarity" to descend upon them: