Provisional Decision Today: ICJ Weighs Emergency Measures Amid Allegations of Genocide in Gaza

[Brickleberry]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   It was a bit to taxing to think about it and to compare the two .

Like : Is the USA putting its Embassy in Jerusalem  similar to blaming Hamas for the deaths in Gaza

Errrrrrrrr , let me think about that for a while 

 

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? 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I understand your point and I know that this is what happens.

But I also know that that is not the whole picture. Israelis have their reasons, and Palestinians have their reasons.

And both can point at the other and claim that the other killed friends and family members.

The situation is very complicated, and that is why there is no easy solution.

 

I think what Israel does in the moment in not "fair" - but then, war is never fair and is not supposed to be fair.

Hamas attack on Israel was a crime. And it's obvious that Israel has the right to defend themselves.

And what Hamas did didn't happen in a vacuum. And, and, and. The list goes on and on and on. That's the big problem which make peace very difficult. 

 

 

Signs of enlightenment, almost....

[Morch]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

The Zionists have been attacking, murdering, etc., Palestinians for the past century. (I can't mention anything prior to that, according to @stats.) This conflict didn't start on Oct 7th, although that incident was one of the worst, at least recently.

It's true that if Oct 7th hadn't occurred, the Zionists would not have gone into Gaza to hunt down Hamas and kill plain Palestinian citizens in the process. But it's also true that if the Jews, led by the Zionists, had not, over the past century, taken over most of Palestine and forced the Palestinians into two small separate areas, Hamas would not have done what they did on Oct 7. 

 

What is wrong with you? What's your issue with saying Israelis? Do you object to their existence?

[Brickleberry]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

There was no mention of the hostages, then? Nothing whatsoever said about Hamas?

 

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:

 

Quote

The court also said it was "gravely concerned" about the fate of hostages held in Gaza and called on Hamas and other armed groups to immediately release them without conditions.

 

This was not a ruling, it was a comment. The court can only rule against countries that have signed up to the conventions.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

@Brickleberry

 

This is not 'the truth'. These are poll results. There are such polls all over the place. Some show this, some show that - and all very much effected by whatever current events taking place at the time.

 

What it is, is you trying to mislead. Because even if you accept the results of this poll, what of it? Was it translated into any political action? And diplomatic move? And initiaitve? Or was is just the usual passive act?

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

Hamas does not. Palestinians do.

 

@Brickleberry

 

Hamas is not a separate entity, Hamas members are Palestinians.

As for you co-opting all Palestinians to fit your contrived point - have a look at past and current polls.

Some Palestinian do, some do not. There is no wall-to-wall acceptance of Israel's existence as you claim.

[Brickleberry]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Brickleberry

 

This is not 'the truth'. These are poll results. There are such polls all over the place. Some show this, some show that - and all very much effected by whatever current events taking place at the time.

 

What it is, is you trying to mislead. Because even if you accept the results of this poll, what of it? Was it translated into any political action? And diplomatic move? And initiaitve? Or was is just the usual passive act?

 

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.

[Nick Carter icp]

4 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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? 

 

   Had there been any concerns about genocide , the UCJ would have ordered an immediate ceasefire . Had the UCJ completely cleared Israel , there could have been violent street  protests .

   So, the UCJ jut told Israel to carry on ,  but just don't do the things they've been accused of 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Hamas the the elected leaders of Gaza Palestinians  

 

It's rather more complicated than that. Not like all Gazans voted Hamas in the last elections (many years back).

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

How do you level 85% of the buildings with 200 2,000 bombs and more ammo than was dropped in just about any war in the last 50 years and claim with a straight face that Israel was trying to minimize casualties? This is precisely why SA took it to the ICJ. And why 100 countries voted in the UN for an immediate ceasefire.

 

@ozimoron

 

If Israel was not trying to minimize casualties, them buildings bombed would have been all occupied by civilians, which would be dead now.

[Brickleberry]

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Had there been any concerns about genocide , the UCJ would have ordered an immediate ceasefire . Had the UCJ completely cleared Israel , there could have been violent street  protests .

   So, the UCJ jut told Israel to carry on ,  but just don't do the things they've been accused of 

 

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.

[Brickleberry]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

@ozimoron

 

If Israel was not trying to minimize casualties, them buildings bombed would have been all occupied by civilians, which would be dead now.

 

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.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

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.

 

 

@Brickleberry

 

70% is very impressive. Did they take to the streets? Tried to bring down Hamas? Called for the PA to assume control? Answering polls is easy. Also, you ignore that it was not always like that - figures and support shift. You just captured a specific point in time, and trying to project from it on the entire thing.

 

All Hamas members are Palestinians. What is so hard to understand about that? It doesn't follow that all Palestinians ought to be destroyed, that's just a nonsense/trolling argument you offer.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   The Palestinian Authority doesn't accept Israel's right exist either .

The P.A and Hamas oppose each other , but they both oppose Israel .

You seem to be making the false claim that Gazians want the P.A in charge , so they can have peace with Israel . But the P.A have a similar stance to Israel as Hamas do .

   Neither of them accept Israels right to exist 

 

That is not correct. The Palestinian Authority does. Officially. If it wasn't that way - there would have been no Palestinian Authority.

The PA is opposed to Israel, along legitimate lines. That's nothing like Hamas.

You are wrong.

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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.

 

   Israel has been told to prevent genocide , which is fair enough .

Although I support Israel's war against Hamas , I wouldn't support Israel mass murdering innocent civilians and although I don't believe Israel would mass murder innocent civilians , there's no harm in having the ICJ keeping an eye on proceedings

[Brickleberry]

Just now, Morch said:

 

 

@Brickleberry

 

70% is very impressive. Did they take to the streets? Tried to bring down Hamas? Called for the PA to assume control? Answering polls is easy. Also, you ignore that it was not always like that - figures and support shift. You just captured a specific point in time, and trying to project from it on the entire thing.

 

All Hamas members are Palestinians. What is so hard to understand about that? It doesn't follow that all Palestinians ought to be destroyed, that's just a nonsense/trolling argument you offer.

 

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

Quote

Since the spring of 2018, at least 260 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli forces — and more than 20,000 wounded— during a sustained nonviolent protest. They were among tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza taking part in the Great Return March. 

Quote

Israel says it will not co-operate with an investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) into possible war crimes in the occupied territories.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

 Here is Abbas, the P.A leader stating that Palestinians will never recognise Israel as a Jewish state 

 

 

Abbas: Palestinians will never recognize Israel as Jewish state

 

 

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-palestinians-will-never-recognize-israel-as-jewish-state/

 

Yeah, that has to do with

 

A. domestic politics (same way you get such statements from Israeli politicians)

B. a law which officially defines non-Jewish minorities in Israel as having lesser rights on a range of topics.

 

That's not quite the same thing. There's resistance to the law from Israeli Jews as well.

[Brickleberry]

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Israel has been told to prevent genocide , which is fair enough .

Although I support Israel's war against Hamas , I wouldn't support Israel mass murdering innocent civilians and although I don't believe Israel would mass murder innocent civilians , there's no harm in having the ICJ keeping an eye on proceedings

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

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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

 

 

@Brickleberry

 

You are referencing a different occasion and a different issue.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

If there's not a dramatic reduction in civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure and facilitation of humanitarian aid there will be an order for a ceasefire in a month.

 

@ozimoron

 

Maybe there will be, maybe there won't. Pretending to know the future is not the same as knowing it.

[Brickleberry]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Brickleberry

 

You are referencing a different occasion and a different issue.

 

No, same issue.

 

Quote

 

According to Erekat, Trump’s decision last December to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “was intended to isolate Jerusalem but has instead isolated the U.S.” 

“We can only implement the [PLO] Central Council’s recommendation to suspend recognition of Israel until Israel recognizes the state of Palestine,” Erekat said.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  The USA can put its Embassy wherever it wants to in Israel and that is between Israel and the USA and no other Country .

   The P.A decided themselves to suspend recognition of Israel, that was the P.As choice and decision by them .

   Trump didn't get the P.A to suspend recognition of Israel , the P.A did it themselves 

 

Past USA administrations chose not to, because of the implications - and wisely so. 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Past USA administrations chose not to, because of the implications - and wisely so. 

 

 

   There wasn't much reaction at all when the Embassy got moved to Jerusalem .

Mass unrest was expected, which just didnt materialise

[Brickleberry]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Brickleberry

 

Hamas is not a separate entity, Hamas members are Palestinians.

As for you co-opting all Palestinians to fit your contrived point - have a look at past and current polls.

Some Palestinian do, some do not. There is no wall-to-wall acceptance of Israel's existence as you claim.

 

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.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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.

 

@Brickleberry

 

There was no ruling on Hamas because it wasn't what South Africa's motion was about. The fact that the court saw fit to add a comment on that regardless, speaks volumes. IF you think that will go away, or will not be meaningful - you're deluding yourself.

 

 

[Nick Carter icp]

14 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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.

 

 

 

   Those great marches home were Gazians marching to the border fence en  masse and attempting to march across the border and into Israel and then settle and live in Israel .

   Israel began shooting when they got close to the border fence , had the IDF not stopped them, they would have marched into Israel and they would have been shot dead .

   They were not peaceful marches or protests , it was an attempted invasion of Israel 

[Neeranam]

2 hours ago, Brickleberry said:

There is no point talking - you say they are trying to minimize casualties but this is categorically untrue.

I wonder why he believe this to be true. Any idea?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

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.

 

@Brickleberry

 

This was debated and linked all over the place on the earlier topics. Polls showing all sorts of polls and positions. Is your nonsense claim now that the figures you cited are eternal? That it was always like this? No changes? No shifts?

 

 Even when you 'retract' or 'admit', you don't really do so - but keep digging. Just to remind of the last two - 'thousands of children and women imprisoned by Israel', 'Rabin the Palestinian pro-peace leader'. More such before that.

[Nick Carter icp]

7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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.

 

  A true comparison would be "Are all BNP members British" 

That is comparing like for like , rather than comparing apples and oranges

Edited January 27 by Nick Carter icp

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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.

 

@Brickleberry

 

And the point of a trial is that the final ruling is not a forgone conclusion.