Dutch court F-35 ban: a “clear risk of serious violations of humanitarian law” by Israel
The Appeals Court in the Hague sided with a group of human rights organisations that argued the parts contributed to violations of law by Israel in its war with Hamas. The court’s ruling
The court therefore orders the State to put an end to the further export of F-35 parts to Israel within seven
There is a clear risk that serious violations of humanitarian law of war are committed in the Gaza Strip with Israel’s F-35 fighter planes.
That ruling “strengthen[ed] our confidence in a positive ruling in our case”, said PAX Netherlands, one of the rights groups involved in the appeal.
“This positive ruling by the judge is very good news. Especially for the civilians in Gaza,” said Michiel Servaes, head of Oxfam Novib, another group involved in the appeal.
we need sanctions on Israel
And the USA
agreed
deleted by creator
Glad there’s some governments that are not on the crazy pills.
This is a judgement by the Dutch high court, not the government.
The Dutch government is still studying the verdict, but is seemingly looking to reverse the decision.Are judicial branches not part of governments?
I consider judges to be government officials representing government. Governments fight themselves quite a lot.
Sure, but one judge, or even a judicial panel, doesn’t mean the government as a collective isn’t on crazy pills.
Government? Naww you got it all wrong. This is the judiciary calling them out. Most of them are all “Israel can do nothing wrong”, it’s weird
Prime-minister Rutte was literally with Netanyahu today calling for a cease-fire and for Israel tone down the attacks.
The Netherlands may be an ally of Israel, but they are hardly saying “Israel can do no wrong”Dude, he’s trying to get the top NATO spot. He’s not going to say anything serious. NATO will be the very last to withdraw support of these genocidal hawks
The court did not use the term genocide (or at least that is not how it is being reported on here in the Netherlands)
“Israël houdt bij haar aanvallen onvoldoende rekening met de gevolgen voor de burgerbevolking”, schrijven de rechters. “Het hof oordeelt dat er een duidelijk risico bestaat dat met de F-35-gevechtsvliegtuigen van Israël ernstige schendingen van het humanitaire oorlogsrecht worden gepleegd in de Gazastrook.”
Translated:
“Israel, in its attacks, does not take enough consideration of the consequences for the civilian population,” write the judges. “The court judges that there exists a clear risk that, using the F35 fighter jets, severe violations of the humanitarian rules of war are being committed in the Gaza Strip.”
“Violating the humanitarian rules of war” doesn’t mean the same as “genocide is being committed”
In my honest opinion, implying that the court has said anything along those lines is being dishonest.
Edit: The following paragraph is also worth noting:
“Dat op dit moment niet een definitief juridisch oordeel kan worden gegeven over de vraag of Israël het humanitair oorlogsrecht op ernstige wijze schendt, dat klopt op zichzelf”, ging de rechter verder. “Dat oordeel geeft het hof ook niet. Maar daar gaat het in deze zaak niet om. Het gaat er in deze zaak alleen om of er een duidelijk risico is dat de naar Israël uitgevoerde F-35-onderdelen gebruikt worden bij het begaan van ernstige schendingen van het humanitair oorlogsrecht. Het hof oordeelt dat onmiskenbaar is dat dat een duidelijk risico is.”
Translated:
“That at this moment there cannot be a definitive legal judgement on the question of whether Israel has violated the humanitarian rules of war in a serious manner, is correct on its face,” continues the judge. “The court doesn’t make that judgement. But that is also not what this case is about. This case it is only about whether there exists a clear risk that the F-35 parts which get exported to Israel get used in the committing of serious violations of the humanitarian rules of war. The court decides that it is unmistakable that that is a clear risk.”
The court case did not look at whether Israel is definitely committing violations of the humanitarian rules of war, but rather whether there is a reasonable assumption of risk that the F35 planes get used in such violations.
And judging by the extent of the attacks on Gaza by Israel, it’s probably fair to say that there is such a risk.Edit 2: Some tweaks to the translations.
Thanks. Sad to hear that the Judge didn’t use harsher words
But israel is factually committing Genocide. And the Netherlands is complicit in Genocide. So the title is still true. The word “may” should even be removed.
When it came to Uyghurs or Ukrainians everyone is allowed to use the word Genocide. But when israel does it we suddenly become really sensitive about language.
You claim that Israel is “factually” committing genocide, but there are legitimate reasons why people are hesitant to outright call what is going on in Gaza a genocide.
On Wikipedia the definition of genocide is as follows:
In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.
Key part in this definition that people generally get hung up on in the case of the Gaza, is the “intent to destroy”.
Very few people are arguing that Israel is not extremely heavy-handed with their actions in Gaza, to the point that they have likely committed war crimes against the civilians of Gaza. However it is insanely difficult to prove that there is an “intent to destroy” in full, or in part, the Palestinian people in Gaza as a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
There are plausible explanations as to why the current operation might not meet that definition.
Maybe it is a genocide… Maybe the Israeli army is merely very heavy-handedly eradicating a terrorist group, with a high civilian death toll as a side-effect… The latter is almost definitely a war crime, but it is not necessarily a genocide. We simply do not have the full picture yet.
I think editorializing actual statements made by the court to make them sound like they support the case for genocide, only serves to muddy the discussion. And I take pretty big issue with that.
Edit: Small disclaimer… I’m talking in this case about what is currently going on in Gaza.
What is going on in the West-Bank with the settlers is a different matter.That situation I consider to be ethnic displacement, at the very least, committed by the settlers with the full support of the Israeli government.
Except that Israeli government is asking for an extermination of Palestinians and there are plans for using flattened Gazan land.
I and ICJ calls it genocide.
The ICJ has not said that Israel is definitively committing genocide
The [ICJ] ordered Israel to refrain from any acts that could fall under the Genocide Convention and to ensure its troops commit no genocidal acts in Gaza.
“At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention,” the judges said.The ICJ has said that there is a possibility that some of the allegations that South-Africa has brought forward might fall under the definition genocide.
That is not a definitive statement. That is saying that further investigation is justified.I have also not seen the Israeli government openly calling for genocide or the extermination of the Palestinian people. However, I have seen plenty of instances of the Israeli government calling for the elimination of Hamas.
It could be that “Hamas” is a veiled placeholder for “Palestinians”, but it could also very well be that they are specifically talking about the terrorist group.My problem is not the suggestion that it might be genocide. I’m not even entirely convinced that it isn’t. My problem is people claiming that it is definitely, factually, genocide, while referencing statements by courts that have never been made.
However it is insanely difficult to prove that there is an “intent to destroy”
Not in this case, Israel has made it very easy actually:
there had been “reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel” such that “the evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible”.
Israel has claimed that “from the river to the sea” is literally a call for genocide and then Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River" and has stated he opposes a Palestinian homeland, which is genocidal intent according to their own opinion. I think anyone casting doubt on the accusation of genocide (aside from Zionists) are genocide apologists or have wet cardboard for brains. That includes people who swallow hasbara hook, line, and sinker.
You’re right this means the Uyghurs and Ukrainians are nog getting genocided. Great argument.
But the Palestinians still are since Netanyahu and his cabinet is calling for the extermination of all Palestinians on live TV in 4K. They’re as passionate and open about their genocide as Hitler was.
Now if only Canada would fucking do this
One can dream…
Fuck, if only:( if only our elected officials could get their heads out of their asses and see the genocide for what it plainly is. We have so much video evidence of war crimes and nothing fucking happens it’s so frustrating
You mean Frozen-hellscaspe-dependent-on-exports-to-and-protection-from-the-United-States? Yeah, that ain’t happening until America does it first.
