Thank you Jonathan for this great explainer. I have two worries I was wondering if you could please give your opinions on as they would be invaluable to know:
1). Having watched Norman Finkelstein's own explanation of the ICJ, it seems that the politics behind the ICJ is going to involve a whole load of mental acrobatics to justify allowi…
Thank you Jonathan for this great explainer. I have two worries I was wondering if you could please give your opinions on as they would be invaluable to know:
1). Having watched Norman Finkelstein's own explanation of the ICJ, it seems that the politics behind the ICJ is going to involve a whole load of mental acrobatics to justify allowing genocide. To be honest, the whole thing sounds like the way the Eurovision Song Contest is run - you know, how you know Greece and Cyprus will give each other 12 points every year without fail however bad the song is. Is this your impression of the court?
2). The more important point is this - if the ICJ rules they do not believe a genocide is taking place - even though it is an 'injunction' case and not full determination (i.e. just because they may rule against SA now, does not mean the very next day it cannot become a genocide) - is it possible that Western states can use the ruling to subjugate and oppress the right to freedom of speech further? Their justification will be that the ICJ has ruled no genocide, therefore saying it is can be outlawed - in the UK potentialy libellous, defamatory - in all states twisted and construed to mean incitement towards hate towards Israel who has been found innocent of genocide. Looked at this way, it seems that SA has taken an enormous risk by taking on the Western Empire in its midst of such extrordinary civil crackdown. (This is no critcism of SA who is the bravest state so far in taking on these war criminals. It is just a query about how much a loss can be utilised by Israel and the West to oppress further). Do you have any thoughts on this?
Thank you Jonathan for this great explainer. I have two worries I was wondering if you could please give your opinions on as they would be invaluable to know:
1). Having watched Norman Finkelstein's own explanation of the ICJ, it seems that the politics behind the ICJ is going to involve a whole load of mental acrobatics to justify allowing genocide. To be honest, the whole thing sounds like the way the Eurovision Song Contest is run - you know, how you know Greece and Cyprus will give each other 12 points every year without fail however bad the song is. Is this your impression of the court?
2). The more important point is this - if the ICJ rules they do not believe a genocide is taking place - even though it is an 'injunction' case and not full determination (i.e. just because they may rule against SA now, does not mean the very next day it cannot become a genocide) - is it possible that Western states can use the ruling to subjugate and oppress the right to freedom of speech further? Their justification will be that the ICJ has ruled no genocide, therefore saying it is can be outlawed - in the UK potentialy libellous, defamatory - in all states twisted and construed to mean incitement towards hate towards Israel who has been found innocent of genocide. Looked at this way, it seems that SA has taken an enormous risk by taking on the Western Empire in its midst of such extrordinary civil crackdown. (This is no critcism of SA who is the bravest state so far in taking on these war criminals. It is just a query about how much a loss can be utilised by Israel and the West to oppress further). Do you have any thoughts on this?