Thanks for that video. I share a lot of the reservations that Dimitri Lascaris put forth, to be sure. I'm not a lawyer, so there are elements that I missed, certainly, when first encountering Khan's statement. Even so, I noted in real time the areas that I saw as equivocating or providing false balance just for the sake of the appearance of balance. Again, crimes clearly were committed on October 7, which means somebody had to have committed them. But I still do not believe there was either the time or the blanket area for any sexual assault that may have been committed by Hamas members to have been "widespread" or "systematic" as has been advanced by Israel and its defenders. So the fact that Khan basically led with that talking point as a criminal charge really gave me pause. (Now, a political YouTuber, Good Politic Guy, noted that Khan's criminal charge of sexual assault was in the context of captivity, so it would be limited to those who have been held by Hamas since October 7, not in the field on that particular day; but that's not how Khan structured his talking point.)
Leaving things on the table, such as apartheid, I agree is egregious and should be revisited. That's a longstanding violation of law that should have been handled before now. Lascaris brought this up, and Diana Buttu did as well on Zeteo. Both are lawyers, so they noticed what was left out in addition to what was advanced.
It had been my understanding that, in the past, Palestinians had brought concerns to Khan and were dubious as to whether he would ever in good faith follow up on their complaints. I cannot be the only one who feels that he brought the charges he did against Israel because Israel's own actions were so egregious that they forced his hand.
I just watched the latest episode of Colonial Outcasts, where a guest, Elina Xenophontos, noted the same thing I did about Khan's language on deprivation of objects essential for human survival mirroring the language in Article II of the Genocide Convention. ( ~ 38:21)
"Khan's speech . . . is very important, because the term . . . 'systematic actions for the purpose of destroying human life' actually aligns with the definition and the criteria for genocide. If you look at the language he used, it's actually very, very interesting."
I think it is probably as well to not be too certain of Khan, but also to hope that he might follow through and there might be some justice in the end for the people of Palestine.
I have to admit, I’m skeptical, though I am a bit heartened that he’s willing to take the amount of pushback that he’s facing right now for submitting these charges. I’m more interested in how this might reverberate with the unconnected but parallel ICJ case. And if Khan’s moves can hasten the end of this bloodshed and terror for the Palestinian people, I wish him godspeed.
Here is another perspective on this situation to consider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB2zXJCBZ1I
Thanks for that video. I share a lot of the reservations that Dimitri Lascaris put forth, to be sure. I'm not a lawyer, so there are elements that I missed, certainly, when first encountering Khan's statement. Even so, I noted in real time the areas that I saw as equivocating or providing false balance just for the sake of the appearance of balance. Again, crimes clearly were committed on October 7, which means somebody had to have committed them. But I still do not believe there was either the time or the blanket area for any sexual assault that may have been committed by Hamas members to have been "widespread" or "systematic" as has been advanced by Israel and its defenders. So the fact that Khan basically led with that talking point as a criminal charge really gave me pause. (Now, a political YouTuber, Good Politic Guy, noted that Khan's criminal charge of sexual assault was in the context of captivity, so it would be limited to those who have been held by Hamas since October 7, not in the field on that particular day; but that's not how Khan structured his talking point.)
Leaving things on the table, such as apartheid, I agree is egregious and should be revisited. That's a longstanding violation of law that should have been handled before now. Lascaris brought this up, and Diana Buttu did as well on Zeteo. Both are lawyers, so they noticed what was left out in addition to what was advanced.
It had been my understanding that, in the past, Palestinians had brought concerns to Khan and were dubious as to whether he would ever in good faith follow up on their complaints. I cannot be the only one who feels that he brought the charges he did against Israel because Israel's own actions were so egregious that they forced his hand.
I just watched the latest episode of Colonial Outcasts, where a guest, Elina Xenophontos, noted the same thing I did about Khan's language on deprivation of objects essential for human survival mirroring the language in Article II of the Genocide Convention. ( ~ 38:21)
https://youtu.be/Vqdn8mznyE8?si=WsL61nGHgYgTXZbh&t=2301
"Khan's speech . . . is very important, because the term . . . 'systematic actions for the purpose of destroying human life' actually aligns with the definition and the criteria for genocide. If you look at the language he used, it's actually very, very interesting."
I think it is probably as well to not be too certain of Khan, but also to hope that he might follow through and there might be some justice in the end for the people of Palestine.
I have to admit, I’m skeptical, though I am a bit heartened that he’s willing to take the amount of pushback that he’s facing right now for submitting these charges. I’m more interested in how this might reverberate with the unconnected but parallel ICJ case. And if Khan’s moves can hasten the end of this bloodshed and terror for the Palestinian people, I wish him godspeed.