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…

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🧵

https://twitter.com/ori_goldberg/status/1780615638517469674

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 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🧵

https://twitter.com/HenMazzig/status/1776334988922790136

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

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

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1775155012856913965

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

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

Others have already pointed out how the legal analysis here is wrong, but this is also very ironic considering the history of how Israeli statehood was recognised as well. Let me take you back to 1948 for a minute🧵

https://twitter.com/marty_morantz/status/1769142282094075963

In February 1948, a couple of months after the adoption of the UN Partition Plan, Jewish and Arab militias were embroiled in an ongoing armed conflict over the future of Palestine. At the centre of hostilities, was the issue of Jerusalem

Folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't say Israel accepted the Partition Plan and at the same time that it does not matter that none of its terms will be implemented. Either it was accepted, and therefore Israel should call for its implementation *today* or it was not 🧵 The argument can't be that Israel accepted the Partition Plan on May 14, 1948 and then was free from implementing it as of May 15, because war broke out. If Israel has accepted the Partition Plan, then that should be its position for resolving the conflict with Palestine today /2

The problem with how war is understood in Western philosophy is that it is so heavily anchored on Just War ideas. Folks seek to frame certain wars as "self-defence" or "armed resistance" in the hopes that this will contextualise the in-bello violence for their peace of mind 🧵

https://twitter.com/AccJurist/status/1764955939562750078

But this is problematic. These terms are not incantations that can qualify/sanitise entire conflicts in normative/moral terms. It is entirely possible to commit illegal/immoral atrocities in a war of resistance / of self-defence - think Dresden in WWII. War is inherently inhumane

This is interesting for several reasons.
1. Israel has historically refused to ratify this very Protocol
2. It is clear from the text that the harmful act has to be outside of humanitarian functions (ie treating people) - consider this in the context of the Jenin attack,

https://twitter.com/eylonalevy/status/1758037845942419528

3. The screenshot is cut, leaving out crucial information about what counts as a hostile act and why it is normally extremely difficult to argue that a medical unit has lost its protection.

Short thread 🧵 explaining what does it mean that Nicaragua 🇳🇮 will intervene in South Africa 🇿🇦 v. Israel 🇮🇱 under article 62 of the ICJ Statute: Essentially, the ICJ Statute allows third-states like Nicaragua to intervene in the procedures and present their own arguments in 2 scenarios: when they have an interest in the result and when they have an interest on how the Court will interpret a treaty they are a party to

The claim that Israel is subjected to “double standards” bc the US would kill Bin Laden too is an interesting one. It shows Israel sees itself as deserving impunity, which is what the US benefits from, given its super-power status. This is not how most states deal with terrorism

https://twitter.com/naftalibennett/status/1753344663862276389

Take my country, Peru, eg. Our “Bin Laden” was found in a residential neighbourhood in Lima in 1992. It was an armed conflict, yes. But sending a MIG-29 to bomb a house down wasn’t really an option for reasons that should be obvious in both Peru and Gaza…

This by Judge Nolte (Germany) should be read widely, both to help folks not get carried away with today's Order and to explain the legal connundrum Israel finds itself in in this case. In short Judge Nolte did not vote in favour of PMs for the reasons you think 🧵

Judge Nolte is not convinced that South Africa has shown genocidal intent by Israel. The reason why he voted in favour of provisional measures was because he felt Israel was not doing enough to punish incitement of genocide uttered by its high-ranking officials and soldiers

In order to keep things more organised, I will be pasting reactions to the ICJ's Order here, in a different thread from the one for reactions to South Africa's application to the ICJ If you're looking for the thread with reactions *to the application* you can find it here:

https://twitter.com/Alonso_GD/status/1740807788719157697

I think this order is in line with what most of us were expecting. The Court could have done more? Yes. The Court could have done less? Yes. Is this a "win" for South Africa? Yes. Is it the best win of the century? No. First the big stuff: There is a risk of irreparable harm for Palestinians under the genocide convention. That is huge. The ICJ was clear that Palestinians are a protected national group. Think of this next time someone tells you "there is no such thing as Palestinians"

This is where I’ll be tweeting my impressions on the ICJ’s Order on South Africa v. Israel. I don’t expect to live tweet as much as share my thoughts and point out anything noteworthy. I am centralising this here for ease of access Experts you should be following today:
ICJ procedure: @juliettemm
IHL: @AdHaque110
Genocide: @DrMelOB
Crime of Starvation: @tomdannenbaum

One of the key assumptions of anticolonial theory is that decolonisation did not end coloniality in the postcolonial world. The very idea of “minorities” operates within the Westphalian nation-state paradigm (1 state for 1 people), that is essential to Zionism /1

https://twitter.com/eylonalevy/status/1748291643554386342

Claiming that Zionism is anticolonial because it allowed a “minority” to create a “nation-state” for said group, to the exclusion of other groups who now themselves become “minorities” is completely misrepresenting anticolonial thought /2

I think it's important to situate the Genocide Convention and South Africa's case within socio-legal context in which they operate. I think it will help explain the dissonance between people's excitement at South Africa's arguments and my more cautious view🧵 For starters, we talk about how difficult it is to prove "intent". This is not "natural". It is the result of political processes that made genocide difficult to prove. I've said before: genocide is common; findings of genocide are not. That's not "good"

https://x.com/Alonso_GD/status/1724839406295519464?s=20

5 Key points of Israel's presentation:
1) Israel placed a lot of importance on procedural issues - specifically, that the ICJ has no jurisdiction because there is no dispute, as South Africa did not wait for Israel to fully engage with it. This was it's weakest argument imo 2) Israel is emphasising its right to Self-Defence. This is interesting as the ICJ noted in 2004 that Israel has no such right in occupied territory. This will certainly impact the wording of Provisional Measures, which, I anticipate, will not take the form of a blanket ceasefire

This is where I will be posting my thoughts on Day 2 of the South Africa v. Israel ICJ Hearings. I will not be live-tweeting, more like sharing my thoughts and key points. I am centralising them for ease of access and starting a new thread so things don't get lost in the way

https://twitter.com/Alonso_GD/status/1745375717469134963

Israel: "is singularly aware why the genocide convention was adopted". "For some, 'never again' is a slogan, for Israel is the highest moral obligation". South Africa has invoked genocide in a war where Israel is defending itself against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad

5 Key points of South Africa's presentation:
1) Israeli officials meant what they said when they uttered genocidal statements and were understood as such by troops. One cannot therefore argue that they are being misconstrued. 2) Even Israel's supposedly humanitarian actions (e.g. the evacuation order) are genocidal, because they constitute mass displacement, aid is being withheld, and people in safe areas are still being bombed

This is where I will be posting my thoughts on the South Africa v. Israel ICJ Hearings. I will not be live-tweeting, but will occassionally share commentary. I am centralising them for ease of access South Africa says Israel's "genocidal acts inevitably form part of a continuum of illegal acts since 1948" and specifically talks of the "Nakba"