Tlaib: Congress “Can No Longer Deny” Israeli Genocide After Amnesty Report
Tlaib: Congress “Can No Longer Deny” Israeli Genocide After Amnesty Report
Advocates are reigniting calls for an arms embargo on Israel after landmark findings that Israel is committing genocide.
“My colleagues can no longer deny that this is genocide,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan). “We must follow our own U.S. laws. We need an Arms Embargo now.”
On Thursday, Amnesty released a sprawling report determining that Israel’s assault of Gaza amounts to genocide, citing Israel’s relentless attacks, blocking of humanitarian aid, targeting of health and other basic infrastructure, forced displacement of 90 percent of Gaza’s population, and more.
Amnesty is the first major international humanitarian organization to outright label Israel’s actions as a genocide. The group was also one of the first major human rights organizations to label Israel’s violent occupation and oppression of Palestine as apartheid, back in 2022.
The human rights group, one of the largest in the world, specifically called out the U.S. as a major collaborator in the genocide due to the Biden administration’s policy of sending Israel weapons with zero red lines. Just last week, despite Israel’s clear, ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza, reports emerged of the Biden administration advancing yet another sale of weapons to Israel worth $680 million.
You're viewing a single thread.
Amnesty International is not the determination of genocide, the ICC is. Though the court has expressed that conditions point to genocide, they haven't said that it has definitely happened. Not trying to be contray here, just trying to explain as I understand it
No, the ICC does not dictate if the United States formally recognizes a genocide. In fact, there is no singular domestic source for recognition of a genocide. See the Armenian Genocide for an example. US recognition of the Armenian Genocide was codified by US House and Senate resolutions in 2019, but even then the White House under the first Trump administration rejected the resolutions and declined to recognize it as a genocide.
This article in particular relates to Rep Tlaib hoping that the Amnesty International report will lead to her colleagues accepting this as a genocide, resulting in a change of policy and an arms embargo. I'm sure she would also like for there to be a formal recognition through a House resolution, but that is not necessary for arms supply policy to change.
ETA: The ICC was established to prosecute war crimes, including genocide, but is not the arbiter of whether the United States and its Congressional representatives recognize actions as genocide or not, which is the subject of this article.
The US can recognize an event on its own terms, there is no question, and that is what Talib is trying to force. But, the opinion of Amnesty International means as much as yours or mine on this subject, which is not much. The only valid opinion comes from the ICC.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the ICC is the sole arbiter of whether something is genocide or not. Can you cite a source or precedent?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide#:~:text=Under Article 25(3)(,a%20crime%20against%20international%20law.
Since you duplicated your link I'll duplicate my response.
You're linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC's definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn't mean that the ICC can't prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.
Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC's authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred,
Of course I made no such argument. I said that that the ICC is the only entity that can declare an act genocide and it is.
Alright, you've convinced me that you're either a disingenuous troll or a genuine fool. Either way, I think this conversation isn't going to be productive. Have a good one.
Reading is what matters
Spoken like someone who hasn't seen a single piece of footage of what the situation in Gaza look like, nor have read any of the detailed reports on exactly how it is a genocide.
I don't think you understand. It's not up to me or you if the law of genocide has been broken. It's up to the ICC.
There is no official body to decide which official body gets to be the official body that decides if a genocide is going on.
Maybe we should focus less on whether it's "official" and more on stopping it, regardless of how it's labeled.
Yes, the International Criiminal Court is the only entity that can declare that the International law of genocide has been broken
You decided.
No sir. It's a law, I'm not an ICC judge. I don't get to decide.
Whereas I decide for myself what I think is genocide based on whether I've seen convincing evidence of it being genocide. Like, for example, this Amnesty International report. I don't outsource my sense of morality to judges and let them overrule my own sense of justice.
If an ICC judge one day decided "no, it's okay for Russia to deport the population of Ukraine, the country was always theirs to begin with" would that make it okay somehow? Or would that simply be the time you decided to withdraw your grant of "officialness" to the ICC?
Which law? Laws have names and titles. They are published publicly and they can be linked to. Please provide a link to the law you are referring to.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide#:~:text=Under Article 25(3)(,a%20crime%20against%20international%20law.
You're linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC's definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn't mean that the ICC can't prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.
Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC's authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Why do you restrict the determination in America's politics body to whether something is a genocide to the ICC? The ICC has laws and a court system to declare something a genocide within their framework (albeit with limited actual power to enforce anything), but the concept of genocide exists outside of international law and political entities can and should react to such without simply waiting for a years long ICC process. Genocide is not simply when the "International Law of Genocide" has been decided.
As I said elsewhere, the US can recognize an event as it pleases. But, the Amnesty International determination is meaningless.
Amnesty International is a well-respected human rights organization, this belief that you need a rule or certificate of authority to say your judgement is meaningful is silly legalism. All declarations of human rights abuses are meaningful in political realms simply based on the stature and respect of the organization making them.
silly legalism
When talking about the law of genocide that's funny
You're in denial. Here's a list of resources to understand how it's a genocide. You're also mistaking the ICC, which prosecutes people, with the ICJ, which prosecutes Countries.
“Here in Deir al-Balah, it’s like an apocalypse. There is no room for you to pitch a tent; you have to set it up near the coast… You have to protect your children from insects, from the heat, and there is no clean water, no toilets, all while the bombing never stops. You feel like you are subhuman here.”
- Mohammed, a 42-year-old father of three, speaking in June 2024 about his experience of displacement from Rafah to Deir al-Balah governorate
Israel's Genocide on Occupied Palestine
- De-Gaza: A Year of Israel’s Genocide and the Collapse of World Order - Euro-Med Monitor Report see Chapter 2 and 3
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention. As an emergency measure, it ordered Israel ensure that its army refrained from genocidal acts against Palestinians.
The ICJ reported, as part of its decisions in March and May, that the situation in Gaza had deteriorated and that Israel had failed to abide by its order in January.
So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.
More than 800 scholars of international law and genocide have signed a public statement arguing that the Israeli military may be committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the total siege and relentless airstrikes continue to inflict devastation on the occupied territory.
An independent United Nations expert warned Monday that "Israel's genocidal violence risks leaking out of Gaza and into the occupied Palestinian territory as a whole" as Western governments, corporations, and other institutions keep up their support for the Israeli military, which stands accused of grave war crimes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Our documentation encompasses over 500 incitements of violence and genocidal incitement, appearing in the forms of social media posts, television interviews, and official statements from Israeli politicians, army personnel, journalists, and other influential personalities.
I, Lee Mordechai, a historian by profession and an Israeli citizen, bear witness in this document to the situation in Gaza as events are unfolding. The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. I explain why I chose to use the term below. Israel’s campaign is ostensibly its reaction to the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, in which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed within the context of the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that can be dated back to 1917 or 1948 (or other dates). In all cases, historical grievances and atrocities do not justify additional atrocities in the present. Therefore, I consider Israel’s response to Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 utterly disproportionate and criminal.
Deliberate Attacks on Civilians
Israel deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so:
-
The Dahiya Doctrine & Israel’s Use of Disproportionate Force
-
‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza
Israel also targets Israeli Soldiers and Civilians to prevent them being leveraged as hostages, known as the Hannibal Directive. Which was also used on Oct 7th.
You can take this data to the ICC. Other lawyers have, but they did determine genocide as far as I am aware. Maybe you know better.
You can actually look at the evidence for once. Read the executive summary or skip to chapter 5, but read something. If you got a problem with the report, quote it and explain why instead of dismissing it for no reason other than you don't want to believe it.
I am not a judge.
You are not, nor are you an expert, nor have you done your own investigation. If you genuinely cared about the humanity and well-being of the Palestinian people, you would take these reports seriously and read them to find out exactly what is happening. It's not normal to dehumanize a people to the point of denying a genocide, hope you get well soon. Empathy is the most important aspect of understanding intersectionality, to recognize and take the perspective of other people facing forms of oppression. There have been plenty of genocides that the ICJ and ICC have not recognized, for one reason or another. That does not make them any less of a genocide. It's the facts on the ground that matter. And that's exactly the point of these reports from Amnesty and Euro-Med Monitor.
My message has always been to you that breaking the law of genocide is up to the ICC to decide. That won't change. You want to take another run at it, it's up to you.
I mean that's true, and also not relevant.
The first comment that agreed that it's true!
It's relevant because...
1 if Talib uses Amnesty to prove her case, she should know it doesn't
2 this is exactly the reason her opponents will use
if Talib uses Amnesty to prove her case, she should know it doesn't
It does as much as Amnesty International is reputable, which is very. Just because the ICJ (not the ICC, those aren't relevant unless you're talking about Netanyahu specifically) hasn't called it a genocide (optional yet) doesn't mean it's not in the same way you don't need a court verdict to call a murder a murder. Amnesty did an independent investigation and published their conclusion according to the definition used in international law, which is not "when we call it a genocide". By your logic all corrupt politicians and CEOs (including Trump before 2020) would be innocent simply because they haven't been found guilty by a court of law. She's appealing to logic, not to any particular enforcement mechanism of international law.
As far as you're concerned, Netanyahu is the only person who can determine if it's a genocide.
Did you read what I wrote? The ICC even produced a warrant for Bebe that said said he produced conditions that could lead to genocide, not that genocide existed.
What you wrote made it evident that you are a genocide denier.
No it doesn't
If you say so. Tell us again how nothing is genocide.
I haven't and I didn't. Why don't you imagine what someone else might say.
You have spent the past year and change defending it.
Don't act like your genocide denialism isn't a pattern of behavior.
Man now you're going make up shit for the last year! Brilliant!
If you want to pretend that you haven't been shoveling genocide apologia all this time, that's your lie to tell, I guess.
I'm leaving this conversation before it gets declared a slapfight.
Good.
There are many. The court currently investigating crimes of genocide is the ICJ, not the ICC.
And the judges at the ICJ do look at the reports of orgs like Amnisty in their consideration.