2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

There is no reason to believe they changed their mind over a ruling that was largely favourable to them . There is no statement that they recanted their promise. You've got nothing.

There is no reason to believe they changed their mind over a ruling that was largely favourable to them

 

The hostages are waiting for this miracle to be released via the order with no pre conditions. Ever though of throwing away that crystal ball and head back down to earth?

 

85. The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip
are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages
abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed
groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's almost as if that's all the court said. Meantime, the genocide continues.

Meantime, the genocide continues.

 

Link?

14 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

@ozimoron

 

What does it have to do with the topic?

 

4 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Not according to the recent ruling by the ICJ... 

 

Untrue.

4 hours ago, WDSmart said:

The "re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel" can only be done by either having the approval of the resident Palestinians or eliminating them one way or the other. 

 

That would be you picking up a dictionary definition, treating it as gospel and interpreting it according to your warped 'opinions.

3 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Or, what's less likely is Israel will either have to offer the Palestinians a co-existence plan of which they approve, or be eliminated or at least forced into some agreement by the UN.

I hope some agreement can be reached. 

 

What's less likely is you posting something that's connected to reality , grounded in facts or not totally biased.

Maybe the Palestinians could start making their own offers, instead of sitting and waiting for Israel to do so.

2 hours ago, xylophone said:

I agree with that statement, and despite all of the arguments and the ICJ meeting, it's relevant to remember who started this war; Hamas started it and must bear responsibility for any outcome, no matter what.

 

As I have mentioned before, Hamas must have known what the repercussions would be and now they are reaping what they have sown, but want to put their hand up to ask for an end to the war!

 

Whomsoever starts a war must bear the responsibility for what happens during it and in every war there are innocents killed, but the big picture is what is focused upon, not that an innocent child, woman or man might be killed during the war, because they are "collateral damage".

 

Innocent people were killed during the German bombing of British cities during WW11 and the same in Dresden where carpet bombing killed many innocent civilians, but the big picture was to demoralise the populations of these countries, not to worry about any innocents being killed. The same happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where thousands of innocent civilians were killed, not because they were playing a part in the war, but because the USA wanted to send a message and to also totally demoralise the Japanese people, which worked, bringing an end to the war.

 

IMO Netanyahu should continue with his plan to totally destroy Hamas, and then go on to totally raze Gaza to the ground so it is uninhabitable, because that's where Hamas are hiding and that's where many supposedly "innocent Palestinians" are helping them survive.

 

Impossible to live in peace next to Hamas, whose avowed intent is to kill Jews and erase Israel from the face of the earth.

 

There is no plan to raze Gaza to the ground and make it uninhabitable.

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

Did the 2nd world war really start in 1939? Did the Vietnam War start with the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

 

@ozimoron

 

Back with that bit of deflection again?

These are topics about current events.

On each and every topic you try to talk about something else, the minute that the content is unfavorable to Hamas or the Palestinians.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Well, we'll see about that. If the countries that comprise the UN start halting their support and funding of Isreal, things could change.

 

So far the international de-funding efforts seem to concentrate on the other side.

 

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There is no plan to raze Gaza to the ground and make it uninhabitable.

I know but it was "suggestion" of mine!!!

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They would be mad to do so, as anyone can see that soon as the hostages are released it's monster time for the IDF, with bells on. The only thing restraining them so far, IMO, are the hostages and the outcry in Israel to do whatever it takes to release them. Netanyahu saying military action will free them  is a nonsense, as if they look like being freed by the IDF they are probably going to be dead before they can be released.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

So you're into Hamas holding on to the hostages, and the war going on. Gotcha. Didn't think you care much for either hostages or Palestinian civilians anyway.

But this is not the first time Israel has been accused of genocide – and what happened last time is instructive. In 1982, the UN general assembly found Israel responsible for an act of genocide against the Palestinian people living in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon. The vote was 123 to 0.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/28/icj-ruling-gaza-wake-up-call-for-washington

Indeed, one of the judges, Georg Nolte from Germany, has indicated that, for him, it is implausible that the IDF military campaign is being conducted with genocidal intent.

 

He voted with the majority, he said, because “dehumanising and discriminate language” used by Israeli officials causes a risk of future violations of the genocide convention.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/28/icj-israel-gaza-ruling-genocide

In addition, Israel’s supporters and allies, such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, will now be expected to respond to the court’s ruling. How they recalibrate their public statements supporting Israel – and their diplomatic and private exchanges with Israeli political leaders – may prove pivotal to Israel scaling back aspects of its military operations.

 

Israel has been placed on notice by the ICJ. A plausible case has been made that Israel has engaged in genocidal conduct in Gaza.

 

https://lsj.com.au/articles/icj-puts-israel-on-notice-over-its-war-in-gaza/

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They could have done that already. Seems to me that western leaders are in the bag for israel and Arab countries don't really care, or are too dominated by the US to take action against israel.

I fear that it's going to become a real tragedy for the Gazans ( and after them the West Bank ), and when it's all over western leaders will be going "oh isn't it just so awful" while doing nothing. We are seeing them for what they really are now, and it's not nice at all.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

The flip side is that there would be so much more stuff for you to post them 'outraged' comments, them whining about the state of the world, and of course, bash Israel. You have no interest in this war ending, I think.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That poster seems to be advocating a "final solution". I seem to have heard that mentioned in history- I think in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Seems it's now OK to talk about such things in this brave new world of ours.

 

It's all a bit sad to see the western world that was braying about how evil Russia is in a different conflict are OK to allow it to happen in Gaza. Hypocrites all, and shame on them.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

And funny enough, you support both Hamas and Russia....

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You don't have to quote everything. They either don't know the rule or are making it up.

We can shorten posts to quote provided we don't change the meaning.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Most of you don't really understand the latter part, though.

 

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Well, we'll see about that. If the countries that comprise the UN start halting their support and funding of Isreal, things could change.

 

The UN supports and funds Israel?

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

I agree, and the Zionists should quit trying to eradicate all the Palestinians.

 

And you should stop posting rubbish.

If Israel was about 'eradicating' all the Palestinians, it would have happened by now.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As I understand it they told israel to stop actions liable to cause genocide and allow more aid in. After which israel carried on regardless. The UN has been exposed as completely useless if the US is against something. Might as well cancel it and use the money for something more useful.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Your understanding is lacking.

53 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That would be you picking up a dictionary definition, treating it as gospel and interpreting it according to your warped 'opinions.

I agree with all of your post above except for the phrase "warped opinions." You should have written "opinions that are different than mine." 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they think they can, they have forgotten how many Palestinians live outside israel, safe from israeli bombs, and right now they are probably working out how they can take revenge against israel. Hezbollah will probably have thousands of new recruits to carry on the fight.

Israel is probably going to be under attack for decades to come, and israelis all over the world will be under threat.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Other than in the other poster's nonsense comment, and your nonsense reply - this is not even a thing.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

There is no reason to believe they changed their mind over a ruling that was largely favourable to them . There is no statement that they recanted their promise. You've got nothing.

Well, the ruling called for them to release the hostages, and they have not, so clearly, they are liars. 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

Hamas has explicitly said it will abide by the rulings. Netanyahu has explicitly said he will not. You're on the wrong side of history.

 

@ozimoron

 

I don't think that Netanyahu actually said that, but you could always try to support your comment with something. Hamas did not actually say that - a representative of Hamas in  Lebanon did. Considering Hamas already broke the previous hostage release agreement, taking their words as solid is a choice. An easy one for Hamas cheerleaders.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

There is no reason to believe they changed their mind over a ruling that was largely favourable to them . There is no statement that they recanted their promise. You've got nothing.

 

@ozimoron

 

There is on reason to believe Hamas.

You do.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's almost as if that's all the court said. Meantime, the genocide continues.

 

@ozimoron

 

There is no 'genocide'.

54 minutes ago, xylophone said:

I know but it was "suggestion" of mine!!!

 

Then it's a vile one, and I oppose it.

53 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

But this is not the first time Israel has been accused of genocide – and what happened last time is instructive. In 1982, the UN general assembly found Israel responsible for an act of genocide against the Palestinian people living in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon. The vote was 123 to 0.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/28/icj-ruling-gaza-wake-up-call-for-washington

 

49 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Indeed, one of the judges, Georg Nolte from Germany, has indicated that, for him, it is implausible that the IDF military campaign is being conducted with genocidal intent.

 

He voted with the majority, he said, because “dehumanising and discriminate language” used by Israeli officials causes a risk of future violations of the genocide convention.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/28/icj-israel-gaza-ruling-genocide

 

44 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In addition, Israel’s supporters and allies, such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, will now be expected to respond to the court’s ruling. How they recalibrate their public statements supporting Israel – and their diplomatic and private exchanges with Israeli political leaders – may prove pivotal to Israel scaling back aspects of its military operations.

 

Israel has been placed on notice by the ICJ. A plausible case has been made that Israel has engaged in genocidal conduct in Gaza.

 

https://lsj.com.au/articles/icj-puts-israel-on-notice-over-its-war-in-gaza/

 

@ozimoron

 

Whenever you run into a point you do not wish to concede, or an argument you cannot support, a statement which has no basis etc - you do this: two or three links in succession to articles/columns 'supporting' your point of view, but having nothing to do with the previous discussion. No comment on them links, as well. This is just fodder. A deflection from your failure.

13 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I agree with all of your post above except for the phrase "warped opinions." You should have written "opinions that are different than mine." 

 

No. Difference of opinion is one thing, there's usually some mutual ground based on facts and reality. Warped is exactly what your 'opinions' are.

 

And, of course, you do not 'agree'.

56 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What's less likely is you posting something that's connected to reality , grounded in facts or not totally biased.

Maybe the Palestinians could start making their own offers, instead of sitting and waiting for Israel to do so.

Israel has the mightiest military by far and is the occupying force. Hamas has the hostages and the threat of more terrorist attacks.

All the rest of this post is IMO...

The first agreement that must be reached is a ceasefire and return of the hostages.

The second is an arrangement of how the Israelis and Palestinians can continue living in the land that used to be called Palestine. There are three options, and I'll list them in the order of my preference:

1. Jews and Palestinians can live together as equals in a one-state solution.
2. Jews and Palestinians can divide the land up and live in separate places in a two-state solution.
3. Jews and Palestinians can continue fighting until there is only one left in a one-state solution.