Dr. Brian L. Cox
@BrianCox_RLTW • 35,188 subscribers
Senior Fellow @MLInstitute. JSD & fmr prof @CornellLaw. MA @JSchool_CU. Ret. @USArmy (11B, 25R, 25V, 11A, 27A). Tar Heel x2. Views my own. Rangers Lead the Way.
Shorts
Videos
3:51
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Periodic reminder that "direct action" is merely a progressive euphemism for "domestic terrorism." #ICYMI I've conveniently compiled a collection of security cam, GoPro & body cam footage of the break-in Elbit Systems UK for which "Palestine Action" domestic terrorists were sentenced today & for whom Zack Polanski here is shedding crocodile tears. After the first incident of vandalizing an Elbit UK facility in July 2020, the group announced on Twitter (account now deactivated): "Palestine Action has launched; join us; get mobilised; take action; end complicity in Israel’s war crimes & apartheid regime." Notice the distortion of the language of international law in the last clause there, since this is my primary area of specialization. The gov't has (correctly) not concluded munitions exported from 🇬🇧 have been used by Israel ישראל to commit "war crimes" in Gaza. At most, Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office justified suspension of ~30 arms export licenses in Sep 2024 by claiming "there is a clear risk that certain items, if exported, might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL." I concluded in a critical analysis here X that the "legal explanation" for doing so "is dangerously flawed & utterly unconvincing" (link to 🧵 in 1st reply). Even so, a "clear risk" that war crimes may be committed isn't conclusive evidence that Israel Defense Forces has in fact committed widespread & systemic war crimes. Plus, as erroneous as the decision was to suspend certain export licenses, GOV.UK is actually *complying* with its int'l law obligations pursuant to the Arms Trade Treaty by *monitoring* use of arms exports & suspending licenses upon a "clear risk" finding (dubious though it may be). Likewise, 🇬🇧 has not determined 🇮🇱 is committing "apartheid" or "genocide." Yet, Palestine Action has justified their campaign of domestic terrorism - sorry, "direct action" - as a movement to end 🇬🇧 "complicity" in these violations of int'l law. As a call to action, the group has encouraged "all those who support justice and equality to join our movement, get active with us, and help to build a campaign capable of ending the UK’s complicity in apartheid" (webpage no longer available). Yet, the methods it adopts to "get active" & qualify for the definition of terrorism pursuant to domestic law. That is, 🇬🇧 law defines "terrorism" (in part) as an act involving "serious violence against a person" or "serious damage to property" where the act "is designed to influence the government ... or to intimidate the public or a section of the public" and it is "made for the purpose of advancing a political ... or ideological cause." If you want to see visual evidence of the "serious violence" or "serious damage" elements, watch the attached video if you haven't already. If you want to see evidence of the influence / intimidate / ideology elements, go read the excerpts of the group's public messaging presented above again. During trial, Police Sergeant Kate Evans testified that her "spine was shattered" when one of the terrorists smashed it with a sledgehammer. Police Constable Aaron Buxton also testified the same terrorist swung the sledgehammer at him "multiple times," likely making contact with his right calf & service radio. PS Evans testified that during the incident, she said "something like 'you have just hit me with a sledgehammer,'" and the terrorist "just started telling me I'm complicit in genocide again." Just think about that for a second. A criminal suspect smashed a law enforcement officer's spine with a sledgehammer, and he attempted to excuse his actions by claiming the officer is "complicit in genocide." These terrorists are enemies of the state - by intent & design. And the leader The Green Party just claimed it's "gut wrenching" to see them jailed. That makes him & his party terrorist sympathizers rather than a serious political party. They & their terrorist friends should be relegated back to the margins of civil society where they have always belonged.
Dr. Brian L. Cox86,348 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce
![Hi, Kevin. International law prof + retired combat soldier/military lawyer U.S. Army here. I watched the show, too. If you're genuinely curious about the discrepancy between Bill Maher & some groups/agencies on the "genocide" issue, read on. You may not hear back from Bill, but I am glad to bring focus to the discrepancy between Bill's correct opinion & that of "some groups and agencies" that "are in disagreement." To start, let's recap what Bill said in case not everyone did see the show in question. This was an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher that aired HBO Max this past Friday (8/21). His guests for this segment were Dana Bash & The New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters. For reference, video for the full episode is available YouTube here (HBO Max subscription required): & audio is available Spotify here: & Apple Podcasts here: For ease of reference & analysis, though, I've added the clip in question as the first attachment to this post. As you can see, Bill is talking about the current situation in Democrats party. On that subject, he says, "They think Gaza is a genocide. It is not. There's an actual meaning [for] the word 'genocide.' It doesn't come close." This discussion continues for another minute or so, and his guests Dana & Jeremy join in on occasion. What we don't see in this clip is an explanation for what you refer to as a discrepancy between Bill's view & that of "some groups & agencies" to which you refer. That's the point of the rest of this post - to fill in that gap that doesn't get addressed in Bill's commentary. The short answer for clarifying the discrepancy can be summarized in just 2 words: sources & methodology. Allow me to explain. Regarding sources, you need to be aware - if you're not already - that the primary source for establishing international law is ... nations. It's right there in the name: interNATIONal law - or law between nations. And this is probably so elementary it doesn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway: "some groups & agencies" are not nation-states. At best, groups like Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch & International Association of Genocide Scholars (which prudently nuked its account after it released the ill-advised "resolution" referred to in the screenshot of what appears to be the Google AI search results you included with your post) qualify as subsidiary sources of international law. So, there isn't actually a "consensus" among such groups. The only people who claim otherwise are those who selectively highlight the groups that have claimed Israel ישראל is responsible for #genocide in #Gaza while ignoring the experts & groups who have determined otherwise. Even so, citing to findings of these groups - regardless of where they land on the genocide issue - represents a fundamental misunderstanding regarding how interNATIONal law is formed. If we stick to the primary source of international law - you know, actual nations - only about 1 in 3 United Nations Member States have publicly announced or concluded there is/was genocide in Gaza. Specifically, that's 64 out of 193 UN Member States that have made that determination. 129 have either announced their determination that there is NO genocide or they haven't taken a public stance on the issue (most of the latter are waiting for the final judgement in RSA v. Isr CIJ_ICJ, which likely won't be reached for several years). And how do we know that only 64 of 193 UN Member States have publicly announced a "genocide" determination? Easy. I counted. 64 represents the most generous tally I could possibly develop, and it is still only about 33% of UN Member States (pic 1, and it's a number I assess will reduce even more since I conducted the count about 2 months ago since many of these announcements were made for political reasons & domestic politics in several states have shifted from liberal to conservative since then). Ok, that's the full explanation for the first word in the short answer: sources. You're referring strictly to subsidiary sources as evidence of a "discrepancy" between Bill's view & that of "some groups & agencies." But if you refer to the primary source of international law, you'll notice there is no discrepancy at all. In fact, there is a "discrepancy" between states & this collection of "yes, genocide" groups & agencies to which you refer. And that brings us to the second word in the short answer: methodology. You see, the decisive element in determining whether a genocide has been committed typically involves intent. And assessing 🇮🇱 intent is where these "yes, genocide" groups & agencies go astray. Almost always, they correctly articulate the standard for genocidal intent. We can find that right there in the Genocide Convention. In case you're not aware, "genocide" involves committing specified acts "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" (pic 2). Now, here's the methodology these groups & agencies adopt without exception. They refer to a carefully-selected sampling of commentary from certain 🇮🇱elected officials - often mistranslated, misrepresented, or taken out of context - to establish what they claim to be intent to destroy Palestinians, as an identity group, in whole or in part, as such. For example, they point to a comment from יואב גלנט - Yoav Gallant on 9 Oct 2023 - just 2 days after the 10/7 terror attacks - saying Israel Defense Forces is fighting against "human animals." However, it's clear from the context that Gallant was referring to Hamas, not the Palestinian population as a whole. There's also a quote from Israel ישראלiPM Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו that is always cited in which he says, during remarks televised on 28 Oct 2023, "Remember what Amalek did to you." For those who aren't familiar, this is a reference to Deuteronomy 25:17–19, which says: "Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt — how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. Therefore, when the Eternal your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Eternal your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!" So, this excerpt from this televised address is almost always referred to as "evidence" that Netanyahu's intent is to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, as such. The problem is (one problem among many, actually), this Amalek reference is taken out of context. Because here's what Netanyahu also says during these remarks: "Yesterday evening, additional ground forces of ours entered the gates of Gaza, at the doorstep of the fortress of evil. This is the second stage of the war, the goals of which are clear: Destroying Hamas's military and governing capabilities, and bringing the captives back home" (full speech available here: Notice the part I emphasized with bold + italics text there? The goal of the campaign is clear: destroy Hamas & bring home all hostages. And this is the part that all these groups & agencies conveniently leave out. In fact, returning all hostages (which has now been completed) & ending the enduring security threat posed by Hamas have been the stated strategic objectives of the military campaign in Gaza all along. To expand on the goals expressed in the "Amalek" speech in late October 2023, Netanyahu also indicated on the 2 year anniversary of 10/7 that the "aims of the war" are to "return all the hostages, destroy the Hamas regime, and ensure that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel" (pic 3). With that stated strategic intent in mind, do you think intending to destroy a transnational terrorist group - Hamas - in whole, if necessary, in order to end the enduring security threat posed by said terrorist group qualifies as genocide? No. That is war. And this is where the methodology of all these "yes, genocide" groups & agencies is fundamentally flawed. They fail to start with the actual stated intent of the military campaign in Gaza then assess whether the conduct of the campaign is consistent with that intent or, instead, the intent is to destroy Palestinians as an identity group in whole or in part as such? At this point, you might be asking why they don't adopt a doctrinal methodology to assessing intent. The answer to that question is simple. Because if they evaluated intent properly, they wouldn't reach the conclusion they want to and seek to reach. Instead, they would agree with Bill Maher. It's not a genocide, and "it doesn't come close." Of course, I'm not here to speak for Bill Maher. But if you are genuinely curious why there is such a "discrepancy" between his view and that of the "groups and agencies" to which you refer - that is the answer. Sources, and methodology. If the reason why that is the case isn't clear from the analysis above, I would be glad to continue this exchange - whether in public or in private. #TheMoreYouKnow #NoGenocide #TruthMatters #legaldisinformation](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2091999213307728307/amplify_video_thumb/2091953233426309120/img/_XHOV5KXOlUwFr2M.jpg)
Hi, Kevin. International law prof + retired combat soldier/military lawyer U.S. Army here. I watched the show, too. If you're genuinely curious about the discrepancy between Bill Maher & some groups/agencies on the "genocide" issue, read on. You may not hear back from Bill, but I am glad to bring focus to the discrepancy between Bill's correct opinion & that of "some groups and agencies" that "are in disagreement." To start, let's recap what Bill said in case not everyone did see the show in question. This was an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher that aired HBO Max this past Friday (8/21). His guests for this segment were Dana Bash & The New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters. For reference, video for the full episode is available YouTube here (HBO Max subscription required): & audio is available Spotify here: & Apple Podcasts here: For ease of reference & analysis, though, I've added the clip in question as the first attachment to this post. As you can see, Bill is talking about the current situation in Democrats party. On that subject, he says, "They think Gaza is a genocide. It is not. There's an actual meaning [for] the word 'genocide.' It doesn't come close." This discussion continues for another minute or so, and his guests Dana & Jeremy join in on occasion. What we don't see in this clip is an explanation for what you refer to as a discrepancy between Bill's view & that of "some groups & agencies" to which you refer. That's the point of the rest of this post - to fill in that gap that doesn't get addressed in Bill's commentary. The short answer for clarifying the discrepancy can be summarized in just 2 words: sources & methodology. Allow me to explain. Regarding sources, you need to be aware - if you're not already - that the primary source for establishing international law is ... nations. It's right there in the name: interNATIONal law - or law between nations. And this is probably so elementary it doesn't need to be said, but I'll say it anyway: "some groups & agencies" are not nation-states. At best, groups like Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch & International Association of Genocide Scholars (which prudently nuked its account after it released the ill-advised "resolution" referred to in the screenshot of what appears to be the Google AI search results you included with your post) qualify as subsidiary sources of international law. So, there isn't actually a "consensus" among such groups. The only people who claim otherwise are those who selectively highlight the groups that have claimed Israel ישראל is responsible for #genocide in #Gaza while ignoring the experts & groups who have determined otherwise. Even so, citing to findings of these groups - regardless of where they land on the genocide issue - represents a fundamental misunderstanding regarding how interNATIONal law is formed. If we stick to the primary source of international law - you know, actual nations - only about 1 in 3 United Nations Member States have publicly announced or concluded there is/was genocide in Gaza. Specifically, that's 64 out of 193 UN Member States that have made that determination. 129 have either announced their determination that there is NO genocide or they haven't taken a public stance on the issue (most of the latter are waiting for the final judgement in RSA v. Isr CIJ_ICJ, which likely won't be reached for several years). And how do we know that only 64 of 193 UN Member States have publicly announced a "genocide" determination? Easy. I counted. 64 represents the most generous tally I could possibly develop, and it is still only about 33% of UN Member States (pic 1, and it's a number I assess will reduce even more since I conducted the count about 2 months ago since many of these announcements were made for political reasons & domestic politics in several states have shifted from liberal to conservative since then). Ok, that's the full explanation for the first word in the short answer: sources. You're referring strictly to subsidiary sources as evidence of a "discrepancy" between Bill's view & that of "some groups & agencies." But if you refer to the primary source of international law, you'll notice there is no discrepancy at all. In fact, there is a "discrepancy" between states & this collection of "yes, genocide" groups & agencies to which you refer. And that brings us to the second word in the short answer: methodology. You see, the decisive element in determining whether a genocide has been committed typically involves intent. And assessing 🇮🇱 intent is where these "yes, genocide" groups & agencies go astray. Almost always, they correctly articulate the standard for genocidal intent. We can find that right there in the Genocide Convention. In case you're not aware, "genocide" involves committing specified acts "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" (pic 2). Now, here's the methodology these groups & agencies adopt without exception. They refer to a carefully-selected sampling of commentary from certain 🇮🇱elected officials - often mistranslated, misrepresented, or taken out of context - to establish what they claim to be intent to destroy Palestinians, as an identity group, in whole or in part, as such. For example, they point to a comment from יואב גלנט - Yoav Gallant on 9 Oct 2023 - just 2 days after the 10/7 terror attacks - saying Israel Defense Forces is fighting against "human animals." However, it's clear from the context that Gallant was referring to Hamas, not the Palestinian population as a whole. There's also a quote from Israel ישראלiPM Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו that is always cited in which he says, during remarks televised on 28 Oct 2023, "Remember what Amalek did to you." For those who aren't familiar, this is a reference to Deuteronomy 25:17–19, which says: "Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt — how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. Therefore, when the Eternal your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Eternal your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!" So, this excerpt from this televised address is almost always referred to as "evidence" that Netanyahu's intent is to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, as such. The problem is (one problem among many, actually), this Amalek reference is taken out of context. Because here's what Netanyahu also says during these remarks: "Yesterday evening, additional ground forces of ours entered the gates of Gaza, at the doorstep of the fortress of evil. This is the second stage of the war, the goals of which are clear: Destroying Hamas's military and governing capabilities, and bringing the captives back home" (full speech available here: Notice the part I emphasized with bold + italics text there? The goal of the campaign is clear: destroy Hamas & bring home all hostages. And this is the part that all these groups & agencies conveniently leave out. In fact, returning all hostages (which has now been completed) & ending the enduring security threat posed by Hamas have been the stated strategic objectives of the military campaign in Gaza all along. To expand on the goals expressed in the "Amalek" speech in late October 2023, Netanyahu also indicated on the 2 year anniversary of 10/7 that the "aims of the war" are to "return all the hostages, destroy the Hamas regime, and ensure that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel" (pic 3). With that stated strategic intent in mind, do you think intending to destroy a transnational terrorist group - Hamas - in whole, if necessary, in order to end the enduring security threat posed by said terrorist group qualifies as genocide? No. That is war. And this is where the methodology of all these "yes, genocide" groups & agencies is fundamentally flawed. They fail to start with the actual stated intent of the military campaign in Gaza then assess whether the conduct of the campaign is consistent with that intent or, instead, the intent is to destroy Palestinians as an identity group in whole or in part as such? At this point, you might be asking why they don't adopt a doctrinal methodology to assessing intent. The answer to that question is simple. Because if they evaluated intent properly, they wouldn't reach the conclusion they want to and seek to reach. Instead, they would agree with Bill Maher. It's not a genocide, and "it doesn't come close." Of course, I'm not here to speak for Bill Maher. But if you are genuinely curious why there is such a "discrepancy" between his view and that of the "groups and agencies" to which you refer - that is the answer. Sources, and methodology. If the reason why that is the case isn't clear from the analysis above, I would be glad to continue this exchange - whether in public or in private. #TheMoreYouKnow #NoGenocide #TruthMatters #legaldisinformation
Dr. Brian L. Cox33,102 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
Daha fazla içerik yok.