Brickleberry

And the right of return was a key part of the demands in the Oslo accords... this is what they want to bring peace. This was one of the many reasons Arrafat declined - not only because they would have very limited right to return (I think 5000 was the figure?). Hamas were actually against the peaceful protests, but still the Palestinians did it. Showing they want peace, and ignoring Hamas. It was also a march to demand an end to the occupation and blockade of the Gaza strip. It would not mean the end of Israel at all! This is another lie perpetuated by those who would offer fear. Israel would still have twice as many Jewish residents than Arabs, even if every single person in the Gaza strip moved to Israel. Note, not every single person in Gaza is a refugee of Israel, I think the figure is around 65%.

No, my problem is with 2000 pound, unguided (dumb) bombs being used in the first place! Don't you get it? Hamas are underneath Gaza. These bombs have little to no effect on the tunnels, and the Hamas terrorists hiding in them. They are great at demolishing neighborhoods and civilians very far away from the bombed site though: https://edition.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs/index.html However, Israel can take out commanders in Lebanon with extreme precision, and no civilian casualties. Does this not make you wonder what they are doing?

My results are from July 2023 - the most recent prior to the conflict. My comment on an old thread was made when I was a bit drunk... I am happy to admit i was wrong in that regard.

No, that is not how international law works: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-what-the-international-court-of-justice-said-and-didnt-say-in-the-genocide-case-against-israel/

By this reasoning, BNP members are British, so all British people are racist? (If you are unaware - I don't know where you hail from - the BNP was a hugely racist party in Britain a few years back) This is exactly why Israel has been taken to court successfully. No distinction between the two.

No, same issue.

That's the first post you made that I 'liked' - and I agree with you.

I'm so glad you mentioned this! Actually yes, the Palestinian people went on peaceful protests for over a year and a half. The great march of return. Every Friday they would march to the wall peacefully and do you know what happened? Israeli snipers on the wall shot thousands of them IRA style. Kneecaps and elbows to permanently disable them. To this day, Israel has refused the ICC permission to investigate these crimes. They even shot dead a world famous journalist at the time. Thousands were shot at, hundreds were killed (including children). Do you know how many Israelis were hurt or killed during these protests? Zero. https://afsc.org/news/what-great-return-march https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56687437

If Israel was trying to kill terrorists, they wouldn't warn them to evacuate and blow up all of the buildings. They are clearly trying to make Gaza unlivable.

Had there not been any concerns about genocide, the case would have been thrown out. The court ruled that they have a plausible case to answer for. Therefore, the case is going to trial and will continue for many months/years.

Well if you can find any evidence to back up those claims, by all means feel free to share. Until you do, however, it is just pure speculation on your end.

Again, another person who doesn't understand how international law works. Hamas, Gaza etc are not countries. They are not able to rule on anything they do because they (unlike SA) have no standing to bring a case. This case was about Israel, and the actions Israel must do. Let's quote the ruling directly: This was not a ruling, it was a comment. The court can only rule against countries that have signed up to the conventions.

Well yes, I suppose you're right. It's much easier to divert away from the topic that Israel has been found to plausibly be committing genocidal acts, is that about right?

LOL. Double standards on display ;) have a good day!

Ah, like when you say Israel isn't to blame for killing thousands, it's all Hamas' fault?

They suspended recognition after Donald Trump put their consulate in Jerusalem. They have recognized Israel for a long long time. Trump got them to 'suspend' recognition. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/6/pa-reconsiders-recognition-of-israel

Categorically false. Try again.

Again, look back at the polling data from July 2023 - 70% of them do not want Hamas, they want the PA. Try to understand that they have not had an election in over 18 years. Blurring the line between Hamas and Palestinians is exactly why Israel now has to face genocide hearings for the next few years to try and prove their innocence. Are you also advocating for the destruction of all Palestinians? If not, then why are you trying to conflate the two? If so, then you've outed yourself as someone who wishes to destroy an entire population. Not a good place to be.

Hamas does not. Palestinians do.

The truth is, in July 2023, a few weeks prior to the Oct 7, 70% of Gazans wanted the PA to lead Gaza, they were sick and tired of Hamas, and have not had a chance to elect them out since they won in 2006/7. The start of the conflict was very unpopular. Palestinians did not want this war, and do not want Hamas in control. 50% of those polled also want a permanent ceasefire and are willing to accept two states based on the 1967 borders (ceding more land - even though it is illegal to seize land by force since the 1st world war). https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/polls-show-majority-gazans-were-against-breaking-ceasefire-hamas-and-hezbollah

Again, the court case is not about Hamas. It is about Israel's behavior in Gaza now, and protecting the innocents.

There is no point talking - you say they are trying to minimize casualties but this is categorically untrue. You bring up the Nazis and Japan, but they have no relevance to this conversation. They are both countries who went to war. Gaza is an occupied territory that has been under siege for 18 years. No parity at all.

We can't expect Zionists & Hamas to come to any agreement. Both parties believe they have sole rights to all of the land between the river and the sea. Israel is right to try and remove Hamas, but they are doing it in the wrong way. You don't blow up entire buildings because one or two terrorists - who are using guerrilla warfare tactics - have popped off a few rounds and then scurried back into their tunnels. You don't warn an entire population to move, and then blow up all of the buildings. Surely warning the terrorists that this area will be bombed is not a good strategy for killing the enemy. But it does make life in Gaza even more unbearable for the poor souls left to live in the rubble. This is why I believe they are committing ethnic cleansing of the area, and committing thousands of war crimes as they are being very indiscriminate with their methods. Anyone who is afraid of the ICC investigating war crimes is obviously guilty of them, and this is precisely why Israel won't allow any investigations. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56687437

Lets use exactly the same source that you just used. This is the headline, the very first words: ICJ to give interim ruling in Gaza genocide case against Israel. South Africa wanted a ceasefire, amongst 8 other provisional measures, to be enforced if they won the case. They won the case, and the genocide case will now proceed to trial. Highly embarrassing for any government. Just because one of their nine provisional measures was not granted, does not mean Israel won the case. Israel attempted to defend itself on two fronts. 1) SA had no standing to bring the case. The court ruled in SA favor. 2) Israel was not committing acts of genocide. Again, the court ruled in SA's favor and found it plausible that it was being committed. You can attempt to use verbal gymnastics, but it isn't working. Most people understand, why don't you? https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/26/icj-to-rule-on-south-africas-case-alleging-israeli-genocide-in-gaza

South Africa wanted the court to consider a case of genocide against Israel. This is what the court was to rule on. The court agreed with SA. South Africa wanted 9 provisional measures to be enforced if they ruled in their favor. The court agreed with six of nine provisions.