Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted

Israel has failed to comply with an order by the United Nations’ top court to provide urgently needed aid to desperate people in the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch said Monday, a month after a landmark ruling in The Hague ordered Israel to moderate its war.

 

While Monday marked a month since the court’s orders were issued, it was not immediately clear whether Israel had handed in such a report.

 

The French aid groups Médecins du Monde and Doctors Without Borders each said that facilities belonging to them were struck by Israeli forces in the weeks following the court order.

 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-26-2024-8682b5446e285a7fc641c9f869df9348

Posted
5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Israel has failed to comply with an order by the United Nations’ top court to provide urgently needed aid to desperate people in the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch said Monday, a month after a landmark ruling in The Hague ordered Israel to moderate its war.

 

While Monday marked a month since the court’s orders were issued, it was not immediately clear whether Israel had handed in such a report.

 

The French aid groups Médecins du Monde and Doctors Without Borders each said that facilities belonging to them were struck by Israeli forces in the weeks following the court order.

 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-26-2024-8682b5446e285a7fc641c9f869df9348

Palestine/Hamas has failed to comply with an order by the United Nations’ top court to provide the urgently needed release the hostages. Human Rights Watch cares nothing about the hostages or the welfare of Israel, they only care about helping Palestine/Hamas. Monday, a month after a landmark ruling in The Hague ordered Palestine/Hamas to release the hostages.

 

While Monday marked a month since the court’s orders were issued, it is clear that Palestine/Hamas have defied the court and have no intention of releasing the hostages. It is clear Palestine/Hamas will continue committing war crimes until Israel is able to eradicate Hamas. 

 

It seems the French aid groups Médecins du Monde and Doctors Without Borders care nothing about the hostages or the welfare of Israel either, they also only care about helping Hamas with the eradication of Israel. 

  • Thanks 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Palestine/Hamas has failed to comply with an order by the United Nations’ top court to provide the urgently needed release the hostages. Human Rights Watch cares nothing about the hostages or the welfare of Israel, they only care about helping Palestine/Hamas. Monday, a month after a landmark ruling in The Hague ordered Palestine/Hamas to release the hostages.

 

While Monday marked a month since the court’s orders were issued, it is clear that Palestine/Hamas have defied the court and have no intention of releasing the hostages. It is clear Palestine/Hamas will continue committing war crimes until Israel is able to eradicate Hamas. 

 

It seems the French aid groups Médecins du Monde and Doctors Without Borders care nothing about the hostages or the welfare of Israel either, they also only care about helping Hamas with the eradication of Israel. 

 

Does that justify striking MSF facilities? A war crime.

Posted
16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Does that justify striking MSF facilities? A war crime.

Your nose is growing again.

 

Do you have anything that supports your false claim that striking MSF facilities is a war crime? 

 

I didn't think so. Carry on lefty. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Your nose is growing again.

 

Do you have anything that supports your false claim that striking MSF facilities is a war crime? 

 

I didn't think so. Carry on lefty. 

 

How is it not?

  • Confused 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

How is it not?

Again, do you have anything that supports your false claim that striking MSF facilities is a war crime? 

 

 

Typical leftist. You want to make false claims, and then compel others to prove you wrong. 

 

You made the claim, it is up to you to support your claim or it or take it back.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, do you have anything that supports your false claim that striking MSF facilities is a war crime? 

 

 

Typical leftist. You want to make false claims, and then compel others to prove you wrong. 

 

You made the claim, it is up to you to support your claim or it or take it back.

 

This is an international medical charity without a political affiliation. It is by definition a war crime to strike it. Under what circumstances could it not be so?

Posted
8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

This is an international medical charity without a political affiliation. It is by definition a war crime to strike it. Under what circumstances could it not be so?

Again, do you have anything that supports your false claim that striking MSF facilities is a war crime? 

 

Typical leftist. You want to make false claims, and then compel others to prove you wrong. 

 

You made the claim, it is up to you to support your claim or it or take it back.

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Posted

We started a group chat to help fellow doctors in Gaza. Then it went quiet

 

Some injuries were simply not survivable, like the case of a 70-year-old grandmother shot in the head by a sniper.

 

The last series of messages in the group detailed an onslaught of patients injured on hospital grounds, including a video sent by the surgeon to our chat of an operating room nurse who was shot in the chest while working in the surgical wing of the hospital.

 

As the security situation of the hospital deteriorated and the internet became spotty, Alser left us audio messages detailing Israeli orders to leave the hospital or face the threat that the hospital would be bombed.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/25/we-started-a-group-chat-to-help-fellow-doctors-in-gaza-then-it-went-quiet

  • Confused 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

We started a group chat to help fellow doctors in Gaza. Then it went quiet

 

Some injuries were simply not survivable, like the case of a 70-year-old grandmother shot in the head by a sniper.

 

The last series of messages in the group detailed an onslaught of patients injured on hospital grounds, including a video sent by the surgeon to our chat of an operating room nurse who was shot in the chest while working in the surgical wing of the hospital.

 

As the security situation of the hospital deteriorated and the internet became spotty, Alser left us audio messages detailing Israeli orders to leave the hospital or face the threat that the hospital would be bombed.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/25/we-started-a-group-chat-to-help-fellow-doctors-in-gaza-then-it-went-quiet

Another Hamaspital bombed? 

 

 

  • Like 2
Posted
9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

We started a group chat to help fellow doctors in Gaza. Then it went quiet

 

Some injuries were simply not survivable, like the case of a 70-year-old grandmother shot in the head by a sniper.

 

The last series of messages in the group detailed an onslaught of patients injured on hospital grounds, including a video sent by the surgeon to our chat of an operating room nurse who was shot in the chest while working in the surgical wing of the hospital.

 

As the security situation of the hospital deteriorated and the internet became spotty, Alser left us audio messages detailing Israeli orders to leave the hospital or face the threat that the hospital would be bombed.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/25/we-started-a-group-chat-to-help-fellow-doctors-in-gaza-then-it-went-quiet

I wonder why the Guardian article left out the reasons IDF entered Nasser Hospital? 

 

It was a hub for keeping hostages, 30 hostages were kept there at one time locked up in small rooms, to them it was no hospital but a prison, it was so well known they were being held captive their that families from Israel got desperately needed medication sent directly to the hospital. When the IDF entered the boxes of medication were all found with the hostages names and photos on them. A Hamas command center was located in the hospital along with a Hamas police station. Dozens of terrorists were arrested there including a Hamas ambulance driver who participated in the Oct 7th atrocities. 

 

Facts like this being omitted from the article are outrageous. Especially when the IDF also supplied a new generator and delivered lots of aid to the hospital, facilitated the WHO entering and transferring some patients out and left the hospital as soon as their limited operation had finished.

 

Oh and all the links to the above have already been posted in the appropriate topic as the incident was happening.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, do you have anything that supports your false claim that striking MSF facilities is a war crime? 

 

Typical leftist. You want to make false claims, and then compel others to prove you wrong. 

 

You made the claim, it is up to you to support your claim or it or take it back.

 

 

Article 8 of the Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, defines a long list of war crimes including “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected”.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Article 8 of the Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) in The Hague, defines a long list of war crimes including “intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected”.

Now check rule 28 in full. 

 

State practice establishes the exception under customary international law that the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Now check rule 28 in full. 

 

State practice establishes the exception under customary international law that the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28

I acknowledge your post on https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28

 

The last couple of paragraphs state:

 

Loss of protection due to medical units
State practice establishes the exception under customary international law that the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.[41]
It is further specified in State practice that prior to an attack against a medical unit which is being used to commit acts harmful to the enemy, a warning has to be issued setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit and that an attack can only take place after such warning has remained unheeded.[42] These procedural requirements are also laid down in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols.[43]

 

Trying to be neutral here, is there any independent evidence, apart from IDF or Hamas claims? 
 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

I acknowledge your post on https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28

 

The last couple of paragraphs state:

 

Loss of protection due to medical units
State practice establishes the exception under customary international law that the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.[41]
It is further specified in State practice that prior to an attack against a medical unit which is being used to commit acts harmful to the enemy, a warning has to be issued setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit and that an attack can only take place after such warning has remained unheeded.[42] These procedural requirements are also laid down in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols.[43]

 

Trying to be neutral here, is there any independent evidence, apart from IDF or Hamas claims? 
 

Thank you so much for acknowledging my link. I have never read you being neutral anywhere including here.....lol

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Thank you so much for acknowledging my link. I have never read you being neutral anywhere including here.....lol

 

Seriously? You've never read that he condemned the Hamas terrorist attacks of October7?

  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes seriously

 

Then let me educate you so you stop unfairly accusing anybody of being one sided.

 

I have previously claimed that not one member here has not condemned Hamas for terrorism. If making claims to the contrary it is incumbent upon you to make sure your claims stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

Edited by ozimoron
  • Confused 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Then let me educate you so you stop unfairly accusing anybody of being one sided.

 

 

Keep your education to yourself, this is one of the least neutral posters on the topics. I will not bother linking to the numerous posts for evidence as this not about him or the topic. Paying lip service to the atrocities in no way makes you neutral. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Thank you so much for acknowledging my link. I have never read you being neutral anywhere including here.....lol

Trying yet again to have a sensible debate, if you're not interested and only want to push your views fine, I'll just carry on regardless.

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

Trying yet again to have a sensible debate, if you're not interested and only want to push your views fine, I'll just carry on regardless.

Ok

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...