Bkk Brian

Can you point out how many Declarations and Dissenting opinions were at the last hearings in this case. Here we have 5 in total. Out of the four, 2 were dissenting opinions and 3 were declarations. The fifth one being the South African Judge but its pretty obvious what that said. Declaration of Judge Tladi Declaration of Judge Aurescu Declaration of Judge Nolte Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde You again avoided my questions. Israeli officials: ICJ ruling gives leeway to continue Rafah offensive The significant yet unclearly worded verdict was interpreted by four judges as a limited order instructing Israel to abide by the Genocide Convention during its activities in Rafah, but not requiring a complete halt to military operations there. The South African judge on the bench, by contrast, argued that the ruling explicitly requires Israel to halt all offensive military operations in Rafah. The 10 other judges avoided this key issue in their decisions. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-officials-icj-ruling-gives-leeway-to-continue-rafah-offensive/

What opposite world? and here we go what makes you think I don't understand? He's come to the same opinion as 4 of the ICJ judges which was that limited operations can still go on. Misinterpretation of the courts order has happened before on 26th Jan ie plausible genocide which turned out to be not the case Why did you not answer my questions?

I posted the entire quote to Twitter without a problem. So I would expect others to do the same. Yea, tweet him and tell him, he's a lawyer so I'm sure he will take up the case with you and in future carry out your expectations.... I know what they wrote, its all in the link I provided, did you not read it? ICJ Vice President Julia Sebutinde “This measure does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only operates to partially restrict Israel’s offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention,” she wrote Friday. She cautioned: “… this directive may be misunderstood as mandating a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah and amounts to micromanaging the hostilities in Gaza by restricting Israel’s ability to pursue its legitimate military objectives, while leaving its enemies, including Hamas, free to attack without Israel being able to respond.” According to this interpretation, an Israeli military operation which would not lead to the mass destruction of Palestinian civilian life would be acceptable to the court. Former Supreme Court president Barak Former Supreme Court president Barak, who serves as an ad-hoc judge on the ICJ bench in the case brought against Israel by South Africa, wrote in his dissenting opinion that the majority decision “requires Israel to halt its military offensive in the Rafah Governorate only in so far as is necessary to comply with Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.” Therefore, according to Barak, “Israel is not prevented from carrying out its military operation in the Rafah Governorate as long as it fulfills its obligations under the Genocide Convention.” The German judge, Georg Nolte, and the Romanian judge, Bogdan Aurescu – who are both among the 13 judges who voted in favor of this measure — also supported Barak’s interpretation of the decree. It is expected that this interpretation — that Israel is not required to halt any and all operations in Rafah – will become the official position of the Justice Ministry and attorney general. Do you think the reason they wrote them is so the media and others concerned would not misrepresent the ruling as they did in the previous one? Did you read my full post on this here?

Its in a tweet what do you expect? Four ICJ judges argue court order does not require IDF to stop all Rafah operations Four of the 15 justices at the International Court of Justice argued that the key operative clause in the court’s ruling, handed down on Friday, does not require that Israel immediately halt all military operations in Rafah, but, rather, that it specifically halt military operations that “could bring about physical destruction in whole or in part” of the Palestinians. Among the four was Israel’s Aharon Barak. A fifth judge, South Africa’s Dire Tladi, took the opposite view, arguing that the ruling, in “explicit terms, ordered the State of Israel to halt its offensive in Rafah.” These were the only five of the 15 judges who penned an opinion or declaration to accompany the ruling. https://www.timesofisrael.com/four-icj-judges-argue-court-order-does-not-require-idf-to-halt-all-rafah-operations/

Israeli Government Spokesman On the announcements by Ireland, Norway and Spain, the Prime Minister said: “The intention of several European countries to recognize a Palestinian state is a reward for terrorism. 80% of the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria supported the terrible massacre of October 7th. This evil cannot be given a state." Now, let's delve a little deeper into this. Other than the October 7th massacre, what exactly has changed in the Palestinian Authority to warrant this prize? They continue with their policy of pay for slay. They continue to educate their children to hate. They still haven't held an election in 19 years. But it's worse than that. Fatah terrorists proudly participated in the October 7th massacre. The Palestinian Authority has not condemned the October 7th massacre. So what is this Palestinian state that you recognized? It is simply a public declaration that spits in the face of the Israeli people while we fight a war for our very survival against the genocidal forces that surround us. After we witnessed the unthinkable atrocities of October 7th, after thousands of missiles and drones were shot at Israel from Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Iran. Will putting placing an Iranian puppet state on the strategic hills of Judea and Samaria, towering over 70% of Israel's population, within eyeshot of the IDF headquarters and Ben Gurion airport,make Israelis safer? The Jewish people just experienced the worst attack since the Holocaust and your response is to advocate for the 9-mile-wide Auschwitz borders? If Israel has learnt anything in recent months, it is that our children deserve a better, safer future, not the resurrection of old, failed policies created by blindsided backseat drivers abroad. A recognition of a Palestinian state does not promote peace. It perpetuates war. Any kind of so-called solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that compromises Israel's security does not mean peace. There will be zero compromise on our security. https://x.com/AviHyman/status/1793726061479391238

Joint Statement by the Head of the National Security Council and the Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The charges of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice in the Hague are false, outrageous and morally repugnant. Following the horrific attack against the citizens of Israel on October 7th, 2023, Israel embarked upon a defensive and just war to eliminate Hamas and to secure the release of our hostages. Israel is acting based on its right to defend its territory and its citizens, consistent with its moral values and in compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law. Israel has not and will not conduct military actions in the Rafah area which may inflict on the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Israel will continue its efforts to enable humanitarian assistance and will act, in full compliance with the law, to reduce as much as possible harm caused to the civilian population in Gaza. Israel will continue to enable the Rafah crossing to remain open for the entry of humanitarian assistance from the Egyptian side of the border, and will prevent terror groups from controlling the passage.

Interesting how the court orders Israel to open the Rafah crossing for aid supplies but it was Egypt that closed it. A senior U.S. official issued a rare rebuke of Egypt on May 22 for blocking aid transfers into Gaza. Egypt shares one border crossing with Gaza in Rafah, which has been closed since May 7. The unnamed U.S. official told The Times of Israel that aid could flow instead through Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing. “We do not believe that aid should be held back for any reason whatsoever. Kerem Shalom is open. The Israelis have it open. And that aid should be going through Kerem Shalom.” More than 82,000 metric tons of aid is currently stranded on the Egyptian side of the crossing, Edem Wosornu, a senior United Nations aid official, said in remarks reported by The Jerusalem Post. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/23/egyptian-blockade-of-aid-to-gaza-earns-rebuke-from-u-s/ Finally after a phone call from Biden they agreed to open it. In call with Biden, Egypt’s Sissi agrees to release Gaza aid via Israel amid continued Rafah closure Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi agreed with US President Joe Biden by phone on Friday to temporarily send humanitarian aid and fuel to the United Nations via Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing until legal mechanisms are in place to reopen the Rafah Border Crossing from the Palestinian side, the Egyptian presidency announces. The announcement is a win for the Biden administration, which has been pressuring Egypt in recent days to take this step. Aid has been piling up in Egypt since Israel launched an operation to take over the Gaza side of the Rafah Border Crossing with Egypt on May 7. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/in-call-with-biden-sissi-agrees-to-release-aid-into-gaza-via-israeli-crossing/

Some feedback from other countries. France’s foreign minister said Wednesday that officially recognizing the Palestinian state is not a taboo, but any such decision must come at the right time. “This is not just a symbolic issue or a question of political positioning, but a diplomatic tool in the service of the solution of two states living side by side in peace and security,” Stephane Sejourne said in a statement. Germany echoed such a sentiment, saying that a two-state solution is the ultimate goal but it must be born out of dialogue. “An independent Palestinian state remains a firm goal of German foreign policy,” a German foreign ministry spokesperson told a regular news conference in Berlin, adding that a dialogue process was needed for that goal. https://www.timesofisrael.com/move-by-norway-ireland-spain-to-recognize-palestinian-state-gets-mixed-global-response/

"Anyone who criticizes Israel is a Jew hater, anyone who criticizes policy is anti-Semitic, anyone who expresses any sympathy for the Palestinian people supports terrorism." You are just plain lying and playing the victim card. People get accused of being anti-Semitic when they are. People get accused of supporting terrorism if they do.

Dishonest deflection. No link to specific claim that you made was provided, this forum rule is at the top of world news. "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

Where did I claim the ICJ had not? On your other point, its not the Times of Israel but it is a legal opinion from 4 of the judges in the ICJ who made the rulings. Did you also read the CNN link? Have you got a problem with the Times of Israel? Here's another expert, yes he's Jewish lawyer this time but the same opinion as the other 4 Judges. Important! #ICJ ruling said Israel must halt its military offensive in Rafah "which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that may bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part." The 2nd part is critical, especially the words "which may." It didn't say Israel must halt entirely and unconditionally. Israel will be within its rights to contend the operation in Rafah does not inflict that which the Court said should not, and therefore continue, perhaps with some modifications. https://x.com/Ostrov_A/status/1793999954203042061

If you have no link to your claims then you are the one with no evidence. Its pretty simple

In other words, you've got nothing. Correct, you supplied no link.....

It as also ordered their release this time & the UN Security Council resolutions, 2 of them to release the hostages immediately and with no pre conditions. The media only tells you about the ICJ’s ruling regarding Israel, it does not tell you that the ICJ unanimously reiterated its call for all hostages held in Gaza to be immediately and unconditionally released.

I can see the personal insults beginning to creep in, what makes you think I am not being rational (twice) So no link to claims ok

Why are you finding it so difficult to admit you can't back your claim up?

You made a claim, I asked for a link to back up your claim, you can't provide it. That's not nonsense its a fact.

I would be shocked if that was relevant but its not, far from it. That's a poll taken a few days before Oct 7th Again your claim: "Hamas needed that propping because it had become so unpopular in Gaza." My reply to that claim: Get back to me when you have a link to that claim

Turns out that one of the dead hostages recovered was the boyfriend of Shani Louk whos body was recovered a few days earlier. https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/1793963901622657337 They were also found in a tunnel within a UN building. https://x.com/DavidSaranga/status/1794213085944983940

NATO Secretary General urges allies to allow Ukraine to strike military targets inside Russia with supplied weapons.

The devils is in the detail and just like last time when the ICJ issued its original orders, the media instead of taking a little time to go through it and get their headlines accurate, immediately go out with their biased shorthand claims that can be misinformation at best. Thats quickly followed by viral headlines everywhere that give little of the actual reality. Remember the plausible Genocide that was supposedly stated by the ICJ? That turned out to be untrue and misrepresented This was the correction by Joan Donoghue, who served as President of the International Court of Justice The ICJ “did not decide - and this is something where I’m correcting what’s said in the media - it did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible.”Joan Donoghue, who served as President of the International Court of Justice until February, once and for all puts to rest the inaccurate and irresponsible claim by some media and UN envoys about the court’s initial ruling on South Africa’s case against Israel committing genocide. So much damage done with this constant stream of misinformation. The same is happening here. Even CNN has to admit some ambiguity.“The order can be understood in two ways: either that Israel has to halt the offensive in Rafah; or specifically components that may lead to conditions of life that could bring physical destruction,” he said. Drill down into it as should have been by the media then you get to what the order on Rafah actually is: According to the interpretation of Sebutinde, Barak and two other judges on the court, the court’s ruling was not a direct and total order to stop the Rafah operation, but rather a limited order instructing Israel not to violate the Genocide Convention in that military campaign. The fifth of five judges who wrote separate opinions or declarations to accompany the ruling, South Africa’s Dire Tladi, took the opposite view, however, arguing that the ruling, in “explicit terms, ordered the State of Israel to halt its offensive in Rafah.” While some are reading the decision as a blanket order to halt the offensive, the wording appeared to include some conditionality that would allow Israel to continue operations in Rafah so long as it ensured that the conditions for Palestinians sheltering there do not deteriorate so as to risk their mass-destruction. Notably, nearly one million of the 1.4 million Palestinians sheltering in Rafah have already evacuated, amid IDF orders to do so. https://www.timesofisrael.com/icj-orders-israel-to-halt-rafah-operations-that-risk-destruction-of-civilian-population/ White House on ICJ ruling: Our position on Rafah is ‘clear and consistent’ In response to Friday’s International Court of Justice ruling, a White House National Security Council spokesperson says that “we’ve been clear and consistent on our position on Rafah,” without elaborating. The significant but somewhat ambiguous ICJ ruling calls on Israel to halt military operations in Rafah that would risk the destruction of the civilian population sheltering there. According to the interpretation of four judges, the order is a limited one instructing Israel not to violate the Genocide Convention in Rafah, not halt its military operations there altogether. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/white-house-on-icj-ruling-our-position-on-rafah-is-clear-and-consistent/

In what way are some members having a problem with the truth?

Click the second link I provided, its the same article with no paywall

This was published about 3 weeks ago, bang on the money looks like: Russia plotting sabotage across Europe, intelligence agencies warn Assessments suggest Kremlin agents preparing covert bombings, arson and attacks on infrastructure “We assess the risk of state-controlled acts of sabotage to be significantly increased,” said Thomas Haldenwang, head of German domestic intelligence. Russia now seems comfortable carrying out operations on European soil “[with] a high potential for damage,” he told a security conference last month hosted by his agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. https://www.ft.com/content/c88509f9-c9bd-46f4-8a5c-9b2bdd3c3dd3 https://archive.ph/VwGy2

Your very first post on the topic said otherwise. A typical apologist rant minimizing what Hamas the terrorists did and immediately attempting to highlight just how bad the IDF are with imaginary accusations