109
Government Of Canada Labels Palestine Solidarity Organization As A Terrorist Entity
(thenorthstar.media)
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
109 points (95.0% liked)
Canada
7280 readers
355 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess because they aren't bringing the terror here?
But Israel/IDF has indeed been found to probably have committed genocide. By agencies and systems in the UN. At this point it's kinda pedantic if it's called terrorism or not, because it's genocide.
And it wouldn't be quite accurate to say that Canada didn't do anything about this. There was suspension of arms sales after all, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/joly-suspensions-analysis-1.7320990
Edit: It's totally reasonable to call for more action on top of this. Stopping arms exports is just a drop in the bucket compared to the horrors that are happening half a world away. But at least it's a start, however small.
This is false. The former chair of the ICJ herself clarified the ruling. They only ruled that it is plausible that the rights of the Palestinian people under the Geneva Convention are at risk, which is a fancy way of saying the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case.
And those horrors you refer to were all brought about by Iranian terror proxies who declared war on Israel. Unfortunately civilians suffer the most in war.
Citation needed.
That, ironically, is quite plausible. That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a court would say.
Meaning that they might not actually be at risk, just that it plausibly looks like so and so a deeper look is needed to indeed confirm that this is the case?
This seems a little too fancy. Why not just plainly say that "we find the ICJ has jurisdiction to hear the case because these allegations fall under our jurisdiction?" I wouldn't normally associate "Geneva violations" language with "court has jurisdiction" verbiage.
Anyways, assuming for the case of argument that all of the above is indeed correct and accurate (happy to give you the benefit of the doubt while you pull out the relevant source or citation) - it seems to me that even then the ICJ saw that there was a risk of irreparable harm to Palestinians, and it also found that Israel's interpretation of "wholly unfounded" and "morally repugnant" "false claims" was lacking or at least uncertain and unclear enough to warrant further investigation (instead of dismissing it outright). I.e. not a frivolous court case.
I mean, true in the sense that it sounded like there was almost a grand peace deal that would have made the Palestine Authority and Israel both happy, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/09/israel-gaza-war-biden-netanyahu-peace-negotiations/679581/ until Hamas ruined it with their terrorist attack.
But the IDF is accountable for its own actions, and some of these seem to break both international and Israeli law. E.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-military-human-shields.html
While this might not have happened this year if Hamas hadn't done what it did last year, that doesn't absolve accountability on behalf of the IDF.
In fact, thinking this through leads to a ridiculous result. If Iran is directly accountable for when the IDF violates laws and human rights, that means Iran is responsible when the IDF violates laws and human rights. Which in turn means that Iran needs to stop the IDF from violating laws and human rights.. Which means making Iran powerful enough to stop the IDF. Which leads to the concept of arming Iran militarily until it's strong enough to plausibly defeat the IDF. Which I suspect would lead to Israelis suffering significantly more human rights violations themselves. (Which I think we can all agree is really bad).
No, the IDF has to be held accountable for the actions that the IDF takes.
On this, I think we're in complete agreement.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919 "Ms Donoghue explained that the court decided the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court."
The one thing that people can't seem to grasp about Israel, because they are so blinded by their hatred and ideological brainwashing, is that Israelis don't want war. That will become clear in time, when the Iranian regime is eventually dealt with, the Abraham Accords move forward, and we enter a new era of peace in the Middle East. And maybe then, just maybe, all the Western anti-Zionists will say, "Hmm, I guess Israel wasn't the bad guy after all."
Nice, thank you for the reference - the BBC article is really helpful.
And unfortunate. Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war. (As per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perpetrate - perpetrate means to produce or bring about.) In fact I feel a major reason why Israel got away with so much nearer in time to Oct 2023 was because it was correctly and widely seen as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Agree that the bar is higher. Will watch the SA case at the ICJ with interest.
I mean, strictly speaking, breaking the law doesn't establish that either. Otherwise, Martin Luther King would have been morally wrong for his civil disobedience in participating in sit-in protests against racism? So just because - as we both agree - the IDF broke the law, it does not follow that they're morally in the wrong?
Logically that's correct. But that just means we need to turn to another basis for arguing that some of the actions taken are morally wrong. Perhaps along the lines of failing to "take reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties."
When I see the headlines from articles like https://time.com/7016741/israel-protests-netanyahu-six-hostages-deaths/ - yes, I can easily believe that.
Well, thank you for at least acknowledging that.
In that case, allow me to provide some sources on this matter,
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-15/ty-article/.premium/idf-soldiers-attacked-military-police-at-gunpoint-for-arresting-comrades-at-sde-teiman/00000192-904d-d2db-ab97-dddd31dd0000
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-04/ty-article/.premium/prosecution-seeks-extended-custody-of-five-israeli-soldiers-suspected-of-sde-teiman-abuse/00000191-1caf-db97-a7df-fcffecc00000
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4630363-us-israeli-military-violated-human-rights/ (though this last one is about accusations that predate the current conflict)
Ok, clear on your meaning now.
No, got confused from the ambiguity above. I think we are agreed, that Hamas clearly started it first. The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they're failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.
I don't disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That's pretty standard in war. But that wasn't what I have in mind when people say things like "Israel is committing war crimes." That has a much different connotation to it.
Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say 'prosecute' rather than 'perpetrate'. My bad.
The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that's it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can't be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it's about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn't do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.
It does have a different connotation to it - as if the gov't of Israel was officially allowing and condoning such "reprehensible behavior" as you put it. However, even if it's against official policy, if the majority of troops are ignoring the laws of their own country's gov't and rules of their own country's military to commit this "reprehensible behavior", then a lot of folks will think that country should be accountable. But this can easily morph to the former statement if one isn't careful about nuance.
Ah, no worries. Though that word is potentially even more confusing - you must mean in the sense of "pursue until finished" as per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute but it also has the meaning of bringing legal action about. Which would imply that the war is legal, which could be stretched further to imply that it's just. Of course, I'd hesitate to go that far on either point (legal or just).
I thought the same, actually. I could go as far as agreeing that a simple retaliation is legal and just, but since this is not that...
Clearly I'm still not getting it.
That's kind of the problem, though, isn't it?
Well though, if not the people, then who can make these judgement? Who is empowered to decide this?
Agreed. The evidence I've seen so far agrees with this.
I support the Accords. But I still worry about innocent civilians - such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives, or the hostages taken on 10/7. And if the beef was just with Iran, why are these folks getting caught in the middle? (Of course it's not just Iran, Hamas is based in Gaza, but if one can easily confuse the Iranian regime with Hamas, then perhaps it's easier to confuse Hamas with people from Gaza more generally, which leads to innocent civilians being wrongly treated like hostile military opponents.)
And no doubt Israel will win this, but I worry about the human sacrifice required from the innocent.
Here's one thing I can say with absolute certainty: If there was a magical way to eliminate the genocidal threats facing Israel and bring about peace in the Middle East without a single civilian death, Israel would take that option. Israel haters won't accept that because they've been brainwashed to think that Israel is itself a genocidal threat, intent on taking over the Middle East. Which, for many people, is a reflection of some underlying antisemitic sentiments.
It is my hope that you are right.
I don't have exact numbers either, but they do exist, as shown by groups like https://nypost.com/2024/10/14/us-news/jewish-anti-israel-protestors-arrested-after-storming-new-york-stock-exchange/
Also, see https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/16/opinions/israel-hamas-gaza-palestinians-oppose-terror-mohammed/index.html and https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2024/0314/Hamas-gambled-with-our-lives-Gazans-are-now-daring-to-speak-out
While not quite answering this question, this survey is still informative, https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2023/12/palestinians-views-oct-7
It shows a majority of Palestinians want a two state solution and a majority do not support Hamas, for example.
How will they do that? I mean, what are the practical mechanics here for these folks to register their choice? What, even, are the specific options being presented to them?
I don't recall them being asked to vote in a referendum or something similar. Mostly I just see things like this, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/middleeast/gaza-jabalya-idf-shooting-intl/index.html - which suggests a complete absence of choice altogether. I'm not clear on how would even a pro-Israeli Zionist who lives in Gaza and is ethnically Palestinian could get registered as a friend to pro-Israeli forces.
Where are you seeing that?
I don't doubt that there are some out there, all I'm saying is that I haven't seen anything to suggest they're not a small minority. Oppressed people have protested publicly in many other countries but we don't hear anything from the Palestinians against Hamas. Why don't we hear anything about underground Palestinian peace movements? Where are the videos of people denouncing Hamas? They've been decimated by the IDF and now Sinwar is dead, so why aren't people taking to the streets to celebrate?
Some ambiguity here - did you mean folks disliking Hamas (which I provided the survey showing it's at 52%) or folks who like Israel (using folks who dislike the US as a proxy, suggests less than half).
I think this is answered by the C.S.M. article,
Also,
I mean, we do. From the same C.S.M. article,
Finally,
Maybe an infrastructure issue, they're not able to take videos because of a lack of electrical power - or can't upload them due to a lack of internet connectivity? Not sure. But reporters on the ground are saying that this is indeed happening.
Aren't they too busy evacuating? As per the orders of the IDF? Except for those in an area with a strong Hamas presence still - those would be too afraid to go out.
Which comes back to my earlier question, even if it really is just a small minority,
I mean Palestinians who are willing to coexist peacefully with Israel. It isn't just about whether they like Hamas or not, it's about their ultimate goals.
The CSM article gives me some hope but I find it very odd that the mainstream media doesn't seem interested in the story. The one article you can find about Gazans resisting Hamas is in the Christian Science Monitor. Bari Weiss (I think it was her) recently told a story about approaching the New York Times with an idea for an article on this very subject because she had done an interview with a Gazan who was speaking out against Hamas and in support of peace with Israel, and the NYT responded, "Nah, we're not interested." Almost as if Western liberal media is suppressing those stories to promote a particular decolonization narrative of the conflict...
Ah, good point. Got your meaning now.
🤞
There are occasional mentions. For example, here's a slightly more mainstream article, https://www.thedailybeast.com/robbed-silenced-and-betrayed-why-gazans-turned-away-from-hamas/
I think overall it just gets fewer clicks and views than the articles that bring up bombs and shootings and deaths. Sorta why we also don't see as much coverage about Israel abandoning the hunt for the hostages, e.g. https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/october-7-anniversary-hostages-betrayal-netanyahu-hamas-hezbollah-20241006.html
Time will tell, I suppose. In any case, like all the publishers who turned down Harry Potter, I suspect they're likely to come to deeply regret this (turning the story down).
Would love to read more about this if you have a reference or link!
It was mentioned on a podcast, but I listen to a lot of them so I can't quite remember which one it was on. I'll have to go back and find it.
Ah, no worries and no rush. If you ever do find it, would appreciate a link to the podcast here (and if you know the minute or time marker that'd be even better!), but no big deal if it doesn't appear right away or in the near future, either.
I was wrong, it was Einat Wilf from the episode in her podcast where she talks about an article she co-wrote with two peace-oriented Arabs shortly after the Abraham Accords were signed. The whole episode is worth a listen, but the particular comment I referenced comes up around 10:15.
Thanks, but do you have a more specific reference to the podcast episode?
I tried to find it, but my searches - https://www.ecosia.org/search?method=index&q=Einat+Wilf+podcast+Abraham+Accords+were+signed - turned up a lot, but I don't think I found the specific one you were referencing.
Sorry, copied but forgot to paste https://www.buzzsprout.com/2221234/episodes/15894912-chapter-26-introducing-muslim-zionism