Thoughts on South Africa and Israel's first appearances before the ICJ

South Africa's strongest case seems to be that Israel has not done enough to crack down on hate speech and possible incitements to genocide within the country. While Israel has taken some steps in this direction, the ICJ may decide that they have not done enough. A plausible outcome would be a provision recommending that they do more.


As for South Africa's argument that Israel's military activities should be suspended until a verdict is reached: I think the case is extremely weak, and the ICJ is almost certain to reject it. On the one hand, South Africa ignores the many efforts Israel has made to protect innocent Palestinian lives and comply with the Genocide Convention. Second, South Africa fails to take into account the fact that Hamas continues to be an active participant in hostilities, and that hostages and other Israeli civilians are still in danger--hundreds of thousands of whom have already been displaced. South Africa's argument is ideologically driven, which they make clear at the outset: It is based on the belief that Israel's very existence is a "nakba" unjustly suffered by the Palestinian people. The ICJ is not likely to take up that ideological position, since the existence of Israel was itself the product of a UN resolution.


Generally, I think both sides performed just as we all could have expected, so I doubt anyone watching at home was swayed one way or the other--unless they hadn't been paying attention beforehand. Israel did a competent job of pointing out the many weaknesses in South Africa's arguments, which include: a failure to distinguish between civilian and combatant casualties; a failure to distinguish between casualties caused by Israel and those caused by Hamas itself; a failure to recognise the threats against Jewish lives in the region; and so on . . .


Unfortunately, I don't think the ICJ's decisions will change many minds, either. We are all too confident in our abilities to decide these things for ourselves. It's a sign of the times. Our online information bubbles rely on the Dunning-Kruger effect. The more an online personality can convince you that you're right about something seemingly pivotal and controversial, the more you're going to go back for more. Expertise is sacrificed at the altar of personality, and wisdom is lost to the wind.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Argument For Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the idea that there is no conflict between determinism and free will.  Incompatibilism is the idea that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.  There's been a lot of discussion over which view is correct.  What's remarkable about the debate isn't so much the stubbornness or passion which has been exhibited by this or that party, but the fact that the very terms of the debate are controversial.  There is a great deal of confusion about what the key issues in the debate are and how we should be talking about them.  As a result, there is a meta-debate within the debate itself.  You cannot engage in the debate without also engaging in a debate about the debate--about what issues are at stake and about how the issues should be framed.  So here's what I want to do:  I want to explain why I think incompatibilists are doing a very bad job of framing the debate, and also why compatibilism is the most reasonable option on the t...
Read more

Sam Harris and the Moral Realism/Moral Relativism Myth

There is a popular misconception that, if you are not a moral realist, you are a moral relativist. Yet, most non-theistic professional philosophers may be neither. As I'll explain, I prefer a variety of anti-realism called moral noncognitivism. First, I want to discuss the moral realism/moral relativism myth. Moral realists believe in objective truths about right and wrong, whereas moral relativists believe that moral truths are subjective, or limited by the beliefs and values of particular communities and cultures. Moral relativists are people who say, for example, that genital mutilation isn't absolutely or universally wrong--it's just wrong for some people. Moral realists respond, "No, genital mutilation really is [or, perhaps, really isn't] wrong, for all people and all times--all things being equal." This is usually how the issue is framed in popular culture, particularly in debates over atheism and the role of religion in society. It is not uncommo...
Read more

Luke Skywalker and Rey: Comparing Character Arcs

My second viewing of The Force Awakens only reinforced my admiration.  I'm very impressed by Rey as a character, and so I want to respond to the prevalent criticism that she does not have a satisfying character arc.  I think she stands up better than many people think.  To prove it, let's compare her arc to Luke's in the original Star Wars, Episode 4: A New Hope.   Luke and Rey each have two inner conflicts dealing with the themes of loyalty and trust, but in Rey's case, the conflicts converge and are developed in a more dramatic and I think satisfying way. At the start of Episode IV: A New Hope , Luke wants to be loyal to his aunt and uncle, but also wants to follow his own dreams.  This is his first inner conflict.  His dreams are somewhat vague at first: He wants to get off Tatooine, join the academy, be heroic, etc.  When Ben Kenobi tells him his father was a Jedi Knight killed by Darth Vader, his motivation becomes more focused: He wants to joi...
Read more