Morch

Do tell how Israel could do that, and still effectively fight Hamas. Just saying things doesn't make them real (a novel concept for you, it seems). Same goes for your comment about 'animals' and 'slaughter'. You constantly make things up, use hyperbole, exaggerate, take things out of context - and treat them as facts. As for Israel being 'surprised' - again nonsense, it wasn't.

The UN (and various related bodies) do issue condemnations and resolutions dealing with both Hamas and the Hezbollah, but nothing on par with the amount of 'attention' Israel gets. Basically they do this either when these two groups either behave badly in a way which cannot be diplomatically ignored, or when the USA (or UK or some other semi-sensible EU country) insists on including such condemnations alongside those issued vs. Israel.

Other than in your hyperbole posts, not 'every single Palestinian' is punished for Hamas's sins.

The USA - neither government, nor public opinion - seem to share the full extent of your views. They do not ignore Hamas's role in this, they do not pretend that there's an easy way to deal with things, or that wars are clean and pretty. The topic is not about them illegal settlements in the West Bank. That's just you trying for a diversion when you cannot address points or make your case. Israel being accused is one thing - and some things Israel does are worthy of such condemnations. The point made was about the sheer scope of it, vs. all the other wrongs in the world. If you think that's reasonable, then guess we have very little common ground to continue this discussion. Hamas is not disconnected from Palestine and Palestinians. As for how Israel could fight 'Hamas and only Hamas' - maybe you could give a clue how, its not like it's a position much expressed by actual experts on this. On the contrary, most highlight that it is very hard for things to be otherwise. Your comment about 10 Hamas and 100 Palestinian civilians is just your usual made up exaggeration, which you cannot and will not ever provide support for. Basically, you allege some 'attitude' this way, then treat it as fact. You're not even remotely honest there.

No, that's just you making up stuff. If Israel was into slaughtering all of them, death toll would be way way higher.

@ozimoron You hardly reference it. You try to minimize it. You try to justify it. Creepy is as creepy does.

@ozimoron You do not have any 'beef' with the Palestinians. You do not have much 'beef' with the Hamas, even. Your post are almost entirely about Israel. And no, there weren't thousands dead on 6/10. You want to minimize Hamas 7/10 attack, normalize it, justify it? Go right ahead. Don't whine about being called a Hamas fanboy, though.

@ozimoron Murder implies intent. Israel does not intentionally target kids. Hamas, however, did. Also, Hamas started this knowing what would happen, and actually welcomed the outcome. Give it a rest, Hamas fanboy.

@thaibeachlovers Highest court in the Planet? Is that your legal 'expertise' on display again? Or maybe something picked up from the illustrious AJ? And, of course, there was no such 'prancing' as you paint. Just you and your bile machine on.

@thaibeachlovers 7/10 was 'cry wolf'?

@thaibeachlovers What's sad is your inability to apply reason to your own comments. Somehow, when Palestinians do their best to kill Israelis, that's for you a legit, commendable, act of struggle which carries no negative implications. But Israel killing Palestinians? OMG....that's so bad. Try this for size - each Israeli killed by Palestinians creates a new enemy for the Palestinians. Shouldn't be very difficult to grasp, even for you. Other than in your wild imagination, Israel did not decided to massacre an entire population. You're just spewing bile and nonsense. Virtually defenseless? Then maybe don't start wars you can't win. Also - 7/10. Something which you do your best to minimize. If comments made were quite as clear as you make them to be, they would be carried by acceptable sources, which you could link.

@thaibeachlovers Wimped out, says a wannabe legal expert. What will Israel 'ignore', exactly? And is that a prediction you just posted? Thought you were against using 'crystal balls'. Your last line is where it's at - you do not actually care about more death, destruction and suffering - you even welcome it so long as it 'scores' points.

You read. Given the carefree manner in which you inject things into posts and discussion on this, it would be easier to address this if it was clear what you're talking about. Who said what, and when, in which context etc. I don't think there's a limit on moving people around. Not if the other option is them being placed in a life-risking situation. It's a war, and wars aren't pretty. Hamas are not exactly making things safer for them, are they? Or is this a non-issue? As for your last paragraph, you could have said the same about Hamas attacking Israel. But you do not. One way street for you, as usual. Seems like the way you construe this conflict in your mind is that it involves only two main actors, Israel and the USA.

Civilians get killed in wars. Fact. The fighting is mostly carried out in densely populated urban zones. Fact. Hamas is doing it's best to put the population in harm's way. Fact. If Israel had not care, or was actually targeting civilians, the death toll would be way higher. Fact.

The USA does not say everything Israel does is right. Even Israel owns up (now and then) when things are obviously wrong. That's just a general untrue statement you offer in order to lay the ground for your 'argument'. As for the prescribed optimal reaction - this would require seeing the ICJ as neutral, unbiased and so on. Holding this position is a choice. You think judges from Russia, China or Muslim countries are going to rule against the wishes of their governments, people? Given the history of anti-Israel decision by such international bodies (same problems of representation on most), raising such doubts is reasonable. Israel gets more condemnations on the UN bodies than any other country. One would have thought that there are other issues in the world, some maybe of greater magnitude, but no. Check how many of the countries involved in such bodies are democratic, allow the sort of freedoms they raise issue vs. Israel with and so on. Half amusing, half infuriating. If what you commented was right, Israel would have just ignored the proceedings. It's not a must to partake, to present it's case and so on. The reality is runs counter to what you claim. I don't know that Israel blamed the court with 'antisemitic' bias, or if that's your own version. There was criticism for sure, and that's to be expected. Why wouldn't there be criticism? It's normal. This 'Jews can't be wrong' tired bit, is something you tend to offer, much less support. On the flip side, don't recall you having that many issues with countries and groups who's attitude is the Hamas 7/10 attack and subsequent actions are justified.

Used to be, on this forum, that promoting such stuff was disallowed. Then again, there was also much less lenience toward trolls, so who knows? As for all those many dead children - they'd still be alive if Hamas had chosen differently on 7/10. And many of them could have been alive now had Hamas bothered to offer them safety within its vast tunnel system, or simply stop the fighting by surrendering. Hamas leadership is on record saying that the death toll is a 'necessary sacrifice' for 'the cause'.

@ozimoron Another empty comment. What does 'giving up' imply? What does 'doing nothing'?

A nice bit of projection there. I don't think you actually wrote that yourself. Sounds like something you copy/pasted again.

Isn't it the same everywhere, though? Here you just pay less, but have less options for it. A fair trade, for most, I think.

Angry how? More like amused by the daftness on display. I don't want to love everyone, especially not trolls and Hamas fanboys. Where did I express anything remotely Islamophobic? Making things up again? Trying to flame? Try harder, little troll.

I don't mind being 'ignored'. I mind the circus it makes of these topics. Especially when it's obvious a lot of it is a sham. Not a religious person, never was. Unlike you, I do not need the spiritual guidance of imaginary Rabbits.

Israel is under no obligation to stop the war. The restrictions cited are pretty much standard. If they were to be reviews (such as by a possible future ICC investigation) I have little doubt most would pass the rather low bar required. International law on war crimes (as in the nitty gritty legal details) is not quite what people imagine. In this regard, you are correct that the powerful do what they want to do - it was basically 'the powerful' nations which formulated these laws, and they are suited accordingly. Israel will go on, but just be more careful about dotting i's, crossing t's. I don't expect this to have a huge impact on things. Similarly, not expecting Hamas to release the hostages, regardless of vows to uphold decisions. Some excuse will present itself, or be dreamed up. Why would the USA deliver fewer weapons to Israel? This isn't about quantity, but application. And why would the USA join votes against Israel in the UN? You seem to imagine this temporary ruling is some moral addict or something. It is not. Several Western countries, including the USA, already opined negatively even on the court accepting the case.

@ozimoron Comments by several Western countries suggest they do not see the case, or the court accepting it as worthy. Labeling the ICJ as a 'neutral third party' is a choice. Given there are enough judges on the panel who are unlikely to vote against the wishes of their home countries. Which countries do you suppose will stop providing military support (don't know what's meant by 'other') to Israel? As in countries which have not already done so before the ICJ ruling.

@ozimoron Your posting history does not indicate much by way of being a legal (let alone on international law) expert.

Key words: Interim. Potential. Case continues. You're jumping the gun - and that final ruling can be years away. As for what the court 'were never going to order Israel to stop fighting' - that's what you're saying now. Since the initial phase, and well before, you wannabe 'pro-palestinian' guys were all over the place with fantasies about what may happen, with many assertions that's exactly what will happen. The bottom line is that the war goes on, the restrictions aren't quite what you people imagine they are. I'm pretty sure y'all will start to scream and shout after the next bombings or something, but that's because you're busy with labels, propaganda and false narratives. What you 'believe' is immaterial, and is not supported by facts - even if it was possible. War crimes are not decided on internet forums, tv reports and so on. I'm aware some of you have trouble getting your head around this. The court provision is up for a month, after which things will be reviewed. In other news, reports suggest Israel and Hamas are getting closer to another deal of hostages for prisoners plus a pause in the fighting. This mashes quite well with the ICJ ruling - and I don't think it's a coincidence.