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

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

It could with a Berlin corridor. Undesirable but not out of the question.

 

@ozimoron

 

Got to love how to seriously uninformed posters 'discuss' things among themselves.

Do you two seriously think these issue never came up before? That no solutions were discussed? Offered?

[simple1]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

We hear a whole lot of talk from faux 'pro-palestinian' posters here about how UNRWA's workers dumped for involvement with Hamas's 7/10 attack are 'a few rotten apples' (or some such). By the same rationale....

 I disagree. For those within the Civil Service who have communicated their disagreement with current policy supporting Israel's actions in Gaza, I suggest, took action to go public based upon their sense of morality - something I admire. I assume the participants in the action work within Departments directly involved with supporting Israel's actions in Gaza. We already know some Western leaders have been communicating with Israeli government expressing caution on the outcomes of non combatants death and injury as well as massive destruction of infrastructure. If I were Palestinian, I would loath living under the rule of the gun (Hamas), but on the other side of the coin I would hate the Israelis. With my limited knowledge, personally I can't see a reasonable outcome for either side - hopefully I'm wrong.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, rabas said:

 

How about giving Israel the north where they are now and give Gazans and Palestinians the south? Seems vastly more practical. The hardest part of such agreements is getting parties to agree. 

 

 

 

The North/South bit doesn't have anything to do with anything. It simply maximizes the negative issues, and introduces more chaos. There would be far more people displaced if this was to be seriously considered, which it won't.

 

The current framework is the one most likely to have any measure of success. And it mostly involves displacement of Israelis (them illegal settlers in the West Bank).

[Morch]

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

How about all Palestinians leaving to go settle in Jordan, a fantasy country promulgated and invented by the British

back in 1946 and headed by puppet king where over 50% of its population are Palestinians and the current king

doesn't even lift a finger to help the other lots of Palestinians in Gaza and West bank?, so why aren't they going

to live and settle in a country with vast empty land, space and resources, to be among their brothers and sisters?...

 

Because it's not 'their' land. Not their homeland. And the Jordanians (whether Palestinians or not) may feel differently about this.

Resources? You must be kidding. What 'resources'? They even need to buy water from Israel.

 

There is no justification for displacement of millions of people, to accommodate others, and at the expense of a third party.

 

You're way out there.

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

The current framework is the one most likely to have any measure of success. And it mostly involves displacement of Israelis (them illegal settlers in the West Bank)

 

Is this option seriously being considered by Israeli government - aren't there about 700,00 Settlers in the West Bank?

[Morch]

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Helpfully the Israeli Levithian that is Gideon Levy has done some work on fleshing out how that could work but reckons with the current generation of Israelis it's a lost cause. https://www.pij.org/articles/1906/one-state-two-nations

 

Levy represents a minuscule extreme-left, anti-Zionist fringe. His 'ideas' are not so much about what can actually be done, but are aired with the purpose of having a go at the more mainstream left (which he objects to more than the right wing zealots...). Taking what he says seriously, or consideration it acceptable, realistic - is a choice. 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

It is not a religious war, it's a war over land and water.

 

@ozimoron

 

these aren't mutually exclusive propositions, at least with regard for some of the factions involved.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

The US wants what the Israeli political lobby wants it to want. That said, the US isn't a party to the actual conflict itself.

 

@ozimoron

 

Yet another Israel/Jews Control America. From another I'm-Not-An-Antisemite poster.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So why do you think Palestine is spending all their money on tunnels and rockets rather that water projects and land development? 

 

Too many Jews in the Biden administration?

 

Too many Arab and Muslim haters post 911? 

 

Palestine is not. Hamas is.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

I think extremists use religion as a moral justification to fight over resources. No reasonable person will admit to just being greedy and unfair.

 

I reject any notion of God so I find it abhorrent that people would invoke religion as justification to fight over land. It is, by definition, genocide, no matter which side invokes it.

 

 

 

@ozimoron

 

Some people commenting on these topic really ought to get out of their comfort zone. What you believe in is irrelevant. What people involved believe is. And yes, some of them are fanatics, zealots and they are actually into that....it's not always an act.

[beautifulthailand99]

40 minutes ago, retarius said:

So why don't you advocate give America back to the American Indians then? They were there before the white colonists? Or Australia back to the Aborigines?

They were genocided by the white colonial settlers. It made land rights a much easier problem to solve.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I think Palestine is spending more money on defensive and offensive military items than domestic assistance projects because those in charge of the government, and most of the general public, are more concerned with defending themselves while trying to hold on to what land they still have than improving their living conditions.

I never thought about how many Jews (or women or non-Whites, etc.) are in the Biden administration. I don't know what "too many" would be. Would that be more than the mean percentage? And if so, how much above that would be "too many"?

My thoughts on "too many" Arab- and Muslim-haters post-9/11 are the same as above.

 

 

Palestine is not doing any such thing. Hamas did/does.

 

The citizens have no say in this. It got zero to do with their priorities.

Also, them 'defensive' bits? They aren't there for the citizens' sake, just for Hamas.

 

You have no idea who involved parties are.

You have no idea who's the government.

You have no idea about how things work under Hamas rule.

You make up stuff about these and about what 'the general public' wants.

 

Are you seriously talking about Jewish 'quotas' for public service? Political office?

And to think that Holocaust Memorial Day just ended....

 

Things sure run deep here on AN.

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 I disagree. For those within the Civil Service who have communicated their disagreement with current policy supporting Israel's actions in Gaza, I suggest, took action to go public based upon their sense of morality - something I admire. I assume the participants in the action work within Departments directly involved with supporting Israel's actions in Gaza. We already know some Western leaders have been communicating with Israeli government expressing caution on the outcomes of non combatants death and injury as well as massive destruction of infrastructure. If I were Palestinian, I would loath living under the rule of the gun (Hamas), but on the other side of the coin I would hate the Israelis. With my limited knowledge, personally I can't see a reasonable outcome for either side - hopefully I'm wrong.

 

I am sure that those UNRWA workers dismissed for involvement in the Hamas 7/10 attack also did so based on a sense of morality (warped as it may be). People believing in something is nothing special. Read recent comments on this topic and see a bunch of people indicate what they believe in. Does not in any way make it correct, right, righteous or moral.

 

As for which departments/positions are involved - that was included in my initial comment. You assume. I do not. As is evident from these topics, a whole lot of people have 'opinions', most of them are not really informed, and a whole lot of them are based on irrelevant biases. There's no reason to think those signing this letter are different. None.

 

Some Palestinians would say this, some would say that. It's like everywhere else. True that on many levels they are caught between a rock and a hard place. No great choices. But this brings up another point I often make - that in many ways, it's up to them. Taking charge of their lives, opting for better choices, better leaderships, better outcomes - it's not something that can be bestowed.

[Morch]

31 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Is this option seriously being considered by Israeli government - aren't there about 700,00 Settlers in the West Bank?

 

It's the currently prevalent framework. Realistically, there is no other. Even when they disagree - that's what they are referencing. Introducing some nonsense 'plan' as above just gives them more 'ammunition' to reject things.

 

Of course they do not accept it, they are a right-wing government, with a strong nationalistic/religious bent. But if polls are to be trusted, they are due for a major hiding next elections. Whether a more centrist government would go for that or not, remains to be seen - and is also very dependent on how things fare with the war, and what the Palestinian side will look like/what positions it will hold.

 

But again - that's what internationally referenced. That's what the powers that be aim for.

 

Netanyahu said he rejected it, then there were reports leaked from both the USA and the UK that he did not fully rule it out. Whether it's just Netanyahu dodging or whether there's more to it, I don't know. There's another play here, related to his political fortunes and legal issues, which I think is part of the drama.

[WDSmart]

1 hour ago, retarius said:

So why don't you advocate give America back to the American Indians then? They were there before the white colonists? Or Australia back to the Aborigines?

I agree, that's the same argument. But, just because the USA (my country) and the Aussies did it doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it something that should be justified today. 

[WDSmart]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Why do you think it 'needs' to be part of a much larger agreement? How does such a comment is anything but endorsing hostage taking as a legit negotiation practice?

 

Your 'proposal' is nonsense.

There only need be two parties that agree. By "larger" agreement, I meant an agreement that encompasses more issues than just the hostage returns. The "taking of hostages" and then using them as a bargaining chip seems the same to me as indiscriminately bombing Gaza and then using the possibility of a ceasefire as a bargaining chip. The much bigger issue, IMO, than either of these, is how the land in dispute will be divided up. 

[WDSmart]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Maybe consult past offers made, and suggestion regarding access between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank before trying to come up with nonsense 'solutions'.

I have published a Version 2 of my Proposed Solution, which incorporates changes suggested here in this Issue and other places. It eliminates the three-map image, which shows how the population of this area has changed over time, and only shows the UN's 1947 map. It also restructured my proposed map to give Palestinians the lower half and Israelis the upper half. Also, I've added some more explanation as to just what my proposed map does and does not mean. I've posted a link to this revised version below.

Thanks for the suggestions I received here.

Rung & Bill: Israel/Palestine Proposed Resolution (billsmart.com)

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I agree, that's the same argument. But, just because the USA (my country) and the Aussies did it doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it something that should be justified today. 

 

Same how? Did either had anything to do with these lands (America/Australia) before going there?

Very different when it comes to Jews and Israel.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

There only need be two parties that agree. By "larger" agreement, I meant an agreement that encompasses more issues than just the hostage returns. The "taking of hostages" and then using them as a bargaining chip seems the same to me as indiscriminately bombing Gaza and then using the possibility of a ceasefire as a bargaining chip. The much bigger issue, IMO, than either of these, is how the land in dispute will be divided up. 

 

Yeah I understood what you meant by 'larger', but not why it 'needs' to be part of. This is a Hamas position/talking point. It's not universally accepted and agreed upon concept. You seem to uphold and support that - in essence broadcasting that taking hostages is a legit negotiation move.

 

As for your bogus 'same same' attempt - no. If Israel was out to bomb with that in mind, there would be no warnings, no evacuations, no nothing - just utter destruction and way longer casualty lists. Further, Israel did not choose this war - Hamas did. Try harder. And tell me how you're not a Hamas fan, while at it.

 

Practically every agreement with Hamas involves a third-party (as mediator/guarantor), sometimes more. This is required by both sides. The same thing applied to agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians - there was always major involvement by other sides (usually the USA in this regard).

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I have published a Version 2 of my Proposed Solution, which incorporates changes suggested here in this Issue and other places. It eliminates the three-map image, which shows how the population of this area has changed over time, and only shows the UN's 1947 map. It also restructured my proposed map to give Palestinians the lower half and Israelis the upper half. Also, I've added some more explanation as to just what my proposed map does and does not mean. I've posted a link to this revised version below.

Thanks for the suggestions I received here.

Rung & Bill: Israel/Palestine Proposed Resolution (billsmart.com)

 

On the off chance you're not trolling - you seriously need to get a clue about where people reside. You want to conduct a second Nakba? 

 

Read more, post less. You're out of touch with basics facts now. Not opinions, not views, facts.

 

 

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And tell me how you're not a Hamas fan, while at it.

 

I'm not a Hamas fan, but I'm not an extremist, right-wing Israeli (I call these "Zionists") either. I can, I believe, see and sympathize with both sides. I hope their negotiations yield some kind of equitable settlement, but, like you, I doubt it. 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I'm not a Hamas fan, but I'm not an extremist, right-wing Israeli (I call these "Zionists") either. I can, I believe, see and sympathize with both sides. I hope their negotiations yield some kind of equitable settlement, but, like you, I doubt it. 

 

You keep posting Hamas talking points, legitimizing their positions, actions.

 

Your insistence on false labels, muddying the water was already addressed. It remains a testimony to your ignorance on related matters.

 

Neither of your two silly 'plans' exhibits 'sympathy' for either side. Basically it's a replay of the colonialist favorite of marking neat straight lines on maps, without actually bothering much about what or who is out there. Both your 'plans' maximize discomfort, problems and hardship for sides.

 

[WDSmart]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

Both your 'plans' maximize discomfort, problems and hardship for sides.

IMO, no matter WHAT type of settlement is reached, and especially if NO settlement is ever reached, there will be unbelievable "discomfort, problems and hardship for both sides."

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

This report classifies approximately 5.8 million adults (2.4% of all U.S. adults) as Jewish. 

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/the-size-of-the-u-s-jewish-population/

 

Jews in the Biden Administration:

Aaron Keyak    Deputy Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
Alan Leventhal    U.S. Ambassador to Denmark
Alejandro Mayorkas    Secretary of Homeland Security
Amos Hochstein    Bureau of Energy Resources Special Envoy
Amy Gutmann    U.S. Ambassador to Germany
Anne Neuberger    Deputy National Security Adviser for Cybersecurity
Avril Haines    Director of National Intelligence
Constance Milstein    U.S. Ambassador to Malta
Dan Shapiro    Adviser on Iran (2021-2023), Senior Advisor for Regional Integration (2023), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy (2023-2024)
Daniel Rosenblum    U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan
David Cohen    CIA Deputy Director 
David Cohen    U.S. Ambassador to Canada
David Kessler    Co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and Head of Operation Warp Speed
David Pressman    U.S. Ambassador to Hungary
Deborah Lipstadt    Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
Edward Siskel    White House Counsel
Ellen Germain    U.S. Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues
Eric Garcetti    U.S. Ambassador to India
Eric Lander    Science and Technology Adviser
Gary Gensler    Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman*
Genine Macks Fidler     National Council on the Humanities
Jack Lew    U.S. Ambassador to Israel (replaced Thomas Nides)
Jack Markell    U.S. Ambassador to Italy and San Marino
Janet Yellin    Secretary of Treasury
Jared Bernstein    Council of Economic Advisers
Jed Kolko    Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce
Jeffrey Zients    COVID-19 Response Coordinator (2021-2023), Chief of Staff (2023)
Jennifer Klein    Co-chair Council on Gender Policy
Jessica Rosenworcel    Chair of the Federal Communications Commission
Jonathan Kanter    Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division
Jonathan Kaplan    U.S. Ambassador to Singapore
Mandy Cohen    Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023) replaced Rochelle Walensky
Marc Nathanson    U.S. Ambassador to Norway
Marc Ostfield    U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay
Marc Stanley    U.S. Ambassador to Argentina
Mark Gitenstein    U.S. Ambassador to the European Union
Merrick Garland    Attorney General
Michael Adler    U.S. Ambassador to Belgium
Michèle Taylor    U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council
Mira Resnick    State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security
Ned Price**    State Department Spokesperson
Polly Trottenberg    Deputy Secretary of Transportation
Rachel Levine    Deputy Health Secretary
Rahm Emanuel    U.S. Ambassador to Japan
Randi Charno Levine    U.S. Ambassador to Portugal
Roberta Jacobson    National Security Council “border czar”
Rochelle Walensky    Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021 - resigned July 2023)
Ron Klain    Chief of Staff (2021-2023), replaced by Jeffrey Zients
Sharon Kleinbaum    Commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
Shelley Greenspan    White House liaison to the Jewish community
Stephanie Pollack    Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (resigned February 2023)
Steven Dettelbach    Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 
Stuart Eizenstat    Special Adviser on Holocaust Issues
Tony Blinken    Secretary of State
Wendy Sherman    Deputy Secretary of State (resigned July 2023) 
Yael Lempert    U.S. Ambassador to Jordan
*Nominated by Biden but serves a five-year term and not technically a member of the administration.
**Price has a Jewish father and Christian mother and identifies as Jewish.

 

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-in-the-biden-administration

So, they are underrepresented, who'd of guessed.

[Yellowtail]

31 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I'm not a Hamas fan, but I'm not an extremist, right-wing Israeli (I call these "Zionists") either. I can, I believe, see and sympathize with both sides. I hope their negotiations yield some kind of equitable settlement, but, like you, I doubt it. 

But you only support one side holding hostages, yes? 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

Snipped for brevity.

 

Some Palestinians would say this, some would say that. It's like everywhere else. True that on many levels they are caught between a rock and a hard place. No great choices. But this brings up another point I often make - that in many ways, it's up to them. Taking charge of their lives, opting for better choices, better leaderships, better outcomes - it's not something that can be bestowed.

 

How could the civilian population remove Hamas? Do they not rule at the point of a gun. So far as I know zero authoritarian governments in the M.E. , excepting Iran, have never been overthrown by the local population  in any case the overthrow of the Shah just led to even more vicious rulers; same with Egypt.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

How could the civilian population remove Hamas? Do they not rule at the point of a gun. So far as I know zero authoritarian governments in the M.E. , excepting Iran, have never been overthrown by the local population  in any case the overthrow of the Shah just led to even more vicious rulers. 

So you support Irael's effort to eradicate them? 

[WDSmart]

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

But you only support one side holding hostages, yes? 

I don't "support" either side, but both sides hold hostages. On one side, they are called "hostages," and on the other side, they are called "detainees" or "prisoners." And both sides have committed atrocities, which include the killing and terrorizing of regular citizens. 

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you support Irael's effort to eradicate them? 

 

I guess you're referring to Hamas, plenty of commentary within the international community claiming it's an unachievable objective... 

[Nick Carter icp]

Just now, WDSmart said:

I don't "support" either side, but both sides hold hostages. On one side, they are called "hostages," and on the other side, they are called "detainees" or "prisoners." And both sides have committed atrocities, which include the killing and terrorizing of regular citizens. 

 

   You keep changing the meanings of words .

I am going to call an airplane a boat and I will fly by boat next time I go to Mars , I am now calling Thailand Mars , so I will fly by boat to Mars later this apple , I now call years apples