Carguacountii

I took it to mean manichean type doctrine, but I might be wrong. For example, Augustine (possibly the preminent early theologian of Christianity) was originally a Manichean - it was very widespread and popular, influencing thought and understanding to this day, being a sythesis of 'western' and 'eastern' (and no doubt 'northern', i.e. turkic/siberian too) thought of various kinds.

I haven't - although I think having read the intro that I've seen it quoted without attribution. I will read it!

Its reminiscent of a lecture I watched about the British Empire in India (I forget the name, but can probably find it again if you're interested), where the lecturer drew a parallel between the colonial concept of 'empty land' (like in Australia, ignoring the people who were living there, or indeed the US), and a similar concept used to justify conquest of obviously more populous and urbanised places like India, one example being with this kind of accusation about women - that the people there were 'savages and weren't treating their women properly' (betraying of course the accuser's view of women, as property without agency), and that a 'white coloniser' would have a better idea about how to 'treat women' (property, like land) than the native inhabitants. I suppose related to the liberal and religious concept of the civilising 'burden' of the coloniser. But we have seen this used very recently, with Afghanistan.

In any case, thanks for the link!

yes, and i think the state response is predictable - round up as many as you can on spurious identifiers (sumptuary laws like these rainbow jewelry), interrogate them and get them on record, and try to judge who is or isn't a threat to state security, or who can be useful or 'turned'.

I think Vijay Prashad wrote something about Russia like its viewed in the West as either the Vatican or hell... not hell, he uses a different word, its a much better phrase than I'm able to remember. But the point being that dichotomy between the source of moral authority, or the opposite (I guess alluding to Moscow as the fourth Rome).

On this particular topic, my own view is that Russia is restricting the rights/priviledges of what they term the 'international' LGBTQ movement, because I think the west uses wealthy urbanite associations of that kind in Russia (particularly St Petersberg/Moscow) for spying activities. At the same time, Putin has said (though ofc its necessary to examine what is done, not just what is said) that the LGBTQ community is part of Russian society, and shouldn't be attacked or victimised - this is probably because as a legalist ruler he wants to be in compliance with various legal obligations, and also doesn't want internal conflict. I think he isn't particularly opposed to the restrictions, because of the support it wins from the Orthodox church.

I wonder also with this particular topic, how much of the impetus for these kind of anti-progressive movements is to do with political kompromat. Certainly I don't think most of the elite, like aristos or capitalists for example, really care about sexual preferences, but rather its a useful political tool if the masses (are persuaded to) consider it immoral. Like with the 'Lavender Scare' in the US, but then I've also seen a CIA testimony saying that they (I paraphrase) 'like homosexuals because they're useful' referring I think to the usefulness of having something over someone. I suppose I mean, I wonder how much (alongside other factors) the passage of anti or pro LGBTQ laws is to do with wanting a political weapon, or alternatively as a kind of disarmemant treaty among the ruling classes.

Its probably related to the elections to a degree... but Kid Starver has the same foriegn policy as the tories (not a surprise, given his background). Which isn't too unusual, since the Labour party is often the party of war - usually if they want Labour in (and they clearly do) its to fight a war.

On an anecdotal level, I've attended a lot of job fairs, and I'd say that starting around Covid times, there has been a military recruitment stand at all of them, which is new (at least from my experience).

I asked a colleague (hospitality sector) when the Russia war kicked off, if he'd sign up to fight in the event of an invasion, and he said yes. Then I asked what if it was just London being attacked, and he looked disgusted and said no (this was in the North).

Well, SA has a big population (comparable to Germany, UK, Iran, Turkey), a lot of resources, a pretty big economy (with lots more potential to develop, around 30% rural population compared to 'developed' nations average of 20-25%), comparable military to Euro countries. It has a lot of standing internationally and in Africa, and occupies a crucial geographic (trade and strategically speaking) position. Thanks to Rhodes wanting to break from the British Empire, it was also relatively well industrialised, compared to for example plantation type colonies. Its also something of an international 'intelligence community' hangout location, or spy hub. And of course it is part of Brics, and on good terms with many countries, particularly those who oppose the 'international rules based' or US/European hegemonic order. It also has good 'moral authority', like the pope.

So I wouldn't say not powerful on its own, and with international support (which it has in this case from all the Islamic countries, and others) it is a significantly powerful 'side' in the dispute, even weighed against the West. And of course Russia and China back SA in many regards (just as SA backs Russia and China).

But I'm no SA expert, I'm sure someone local could give better info - that's just my perception on what I do know.

I think I just caught Ramaphosa speaking and emphasising 'all parties to' or similar. My expectation (i'm not an international lawyer obviously) is that no Hamas is not obliged (any actions would be prosecuted under Israeli law, it being the occupying power, I assume), that 'all sides' refers to the states in dispute, i.e. SA.

edit; The State of Palestine is an observer to the UN and signatory, actually I'm not sure, because Fatah & Hamas are in dispute... but I think its Fatah that are recognised as the government internationally, so I guess they would be responsible in that sense, not Hamas, unless Hamas were recognised as the legit government.

Some initial conclusions from today's ruling;

Israel and its international supporters have been found guilty of committing genocide in occupied Palestine, on the basis of the 'no smoke without fire' precedent. Or, is plausibly suspected of, being pedantic.

Ansarallah & Hezbollah are both non state actors doing their respective countries proud by upholding committments they are only ethically, not actual signatories to, being non-state actors.

The US and UK are attacking Ansarallah without any legal justification, as China has said, and actually impeding their efforts to uphold the genocide convention.

of relevance to the UK, the leader of the Labour party has publically incited genocidal acts. And the Unions, by not supporting Hamas as requested, are also complicit. The Isreali ambassador needs to be sent home for her disgusting comments. Time to start filing lawsuits with the ICC i guess

South Africa (and co-signers) is now the vanguard of moral authority in the world, if it wasn't already, and should be listened to hereafter on matters of international ethics.

it seems like its kind of giving both sides what they want (usually what courts do when ruling between powerful interests as far as is possible)

israel & US & Europeans can keep attacking, but also there's a suspicion of genocide, it makes a bombing campaign and demolitions, not to mention the attempt to provoke the West Bank very difficult.

I guess a case of giving Israel enough rope to hang itself, but also not telling the US to stop its foriegn policy?

This is true of course, but then on a more fundamental level, the ICJ does uphold an international legal system agreed on by fewer countries (and is founded on even fewer, per the League of Nations) than exist today, that is based in British and to a degree French legal systems, so it still to some degree upholds 'western' hegemony in that sense, like foundationally.

but then, the hegemony really tied their own laces together with the Serbian & Myanmar rulings here, I guess the law is a double edged sword

I guess it makes sense, public (specified in the statement) incitement is just going to harm their own legal defence going forward (whether they can actually get politicians to stop doing it is another issue). They already claim they're meeting the humanitarian conditions thing, and its easier for them to split hairs over ('hamas stole it all' etc), plus other countries will pay for it.

yes well it explains the recent ceasefire offer of 2 months, and Hamas saying 'sure if the ICJ says ceasefire and you'll abide by one'