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

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Mostly Israel and the USA can stop this war. And the USA could force Israel to accept a Palestinian state. It wouldn't be easy, but a Palestinian state is the only viable long-term solution. Israel can't win this conflict the way they try to do it now.

Obviously that also needs cooperation from the Palestinian people and many others. But Israel and the USA and the main players. 

Mostly Israel and the USA can stop this war. 

 

How wrong you are. There are a very large group of terrorists who could stop it all today.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Israeli Defense Minister: 'We Are Fighting Human Animals’ | HuffPost Latest News

Israeli Defense Minister Announces Siege On Gaza To Fight ‘Human Animals’
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called for denying Palestinian people electricity, food, water and fuel as Israel continues its bombardment of Gaza.

 

I am sure you will find lots of other sources which confirm this quote.

 

Yes, that was my point. You take a statement (or even several) and paint them as a general thing. As what Israel and Israelis think. You do not do context, you do not consider the speakers political leanings and motivations. You treat it as policy. You do not apply anything remotely the same when such statements are issued by Palestinians and/or Hamas.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, that was my point. You take a statement (or even several) and paint them as a general thing. As what Israel and Israelis think. You do not do context, you do not consider the speakers political leanings and motivations. You treat it as policy. You do not apply anything remotely the same when such statements are issued by Palestinians and/or Hamas.

I quoted an official statement by someone high ranking in the Israeli government. There are many more quotes like that. You could find them - if you would want to do that. 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Mostly Israel and the USA can stop this war. And the USA could force Israel to accept a Palestinian state. It wouldn't be easy, but a Palestinian state is the only viable long-term solution. Israel can't win this conflict the way they try to do it now.

Obviously that also needs cooperation from the Palestinian people and many others. But Israel and the USA and the main players. 

 

What is it with you and chopping off posts? Why the need for this? It's not like the rest of the post is irrelevant - it's just you doing that dishonest bit of misrepresenting a more comprehensive point.

 

Mostly Israel and the USA? Like, Hamas is off the hook? Can't they just stop tomorrow? Today? Yesterday? 

 

What Palestinian State would that be? One ruled by Hamas? One announced on before the hostages are released?

 

The Palestinians are not a main player when it comes to setting up a Palestinian State? You've lost the plot.

 

Keeping on pushing them simplistic memes like they mean something doesn't really make you point. 

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Obviously, it is simplistic. But it seems to help you to understand that bombing everybody is not the only option. 

 

It wasn't even addressed to me.

And no, it does not 'help'. Especially as not 'everybody' is being bombed - other than in your imagination.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I quoted an official statement by someone high ranking in the Israeli government. There are many more quotes like that. You could find them - if you would want to do that. 

 

Yes. And he's a right-wing politician also playing political games with other party members (including Netanyahu). I'm not defending his words, but what you try to imply that's a general Israeli position and perception - that would be akin to you taking Trump's words as being what the USA and Americans think or feel, for example. If Israel was out to 'slaughter' the Palestinians as 'animals' there would be far less Palestinians around. There would be no warnings, no time to to evacuate, no ground troops maybe, and no reprieve. You're back in hyperbole land, as usual.

[coolcarer]

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

 

No, I was stating the obvious. The ICJ measures were not even mentioned in my post.

 

Each and every person who claims that supporting the Palestinians equates to supporting terrorists is guilty of the same thing Israel is. Not separating Hamas from the Palestinians as a whole. This is why South Africa won their case, and Israel lost. Israel now has to defend itself for years to come as the case drags on in the courts.

In your upside down world obviously. In the real world Hamas will continue to get eliminated

[Brickleberry]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I quoted an official statement by someone high ranking in the Israeli government. There are many more quotes like that. You could find them - if you would want to do that. 

 

There's no need to find any quotes anymore. There's no need to prove that Israel is not following international law. It is quite clear.

 

People can just point to the ICJ ruling and say "Why are you being investigated for committing genocide?"

 

[Brickleberry]

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

In your upside down world obviously. In the real world Hamas will continue to get eliminated

 

I don't have a problem with Hamas being eliminated. I do have a problem with Palestinians being denied their most basic rights for the last 75 years.

 

At the same time, I don't believe Israels current government has any moral standing left. Most moral army in the world... please!

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Brickleberry said:

 

There's no need to find any quotes anymore. There's no need to prove that Israel is not following international law. It is quite clear.

 

People can just point to the ICJ ruling and say "Why are you being investigated for committing genocide?"

 

 

That would be you making up things again.

This is a provisional ruling.

As expected, wannabe 'pro-palestinians' try to paint it as something else.

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

I don't have a problem with Hamas being eliminated. I do have a problem with Palestinians being denied their most basic rights for the last 75 years.

 

At the same time, I don't believe Israels current government has any moral standing left. Most moral army in the world... please!

Have we deflected to a history lesson. That has nothing to do with the ICJ ruling. This topic

 

 

[Morch]

Just now, Brickleberry said:

 

I don't have a problem with Hamas being eliminated. I do have a problem with Palestinians being denied their most basic rights for the last 75 years.

 

At the same time, I don't believe Israels current government has any moral standing left. Most moral army in the world... please!

 

Once again with the false historical narrative.

 

The Palestinians refused a Palestinian State in 1947.

The Palestinians did nothing much to work toward this while being ruled by Egypt and Jordan up to 1967.

The Palestinians then adopted a rejectionist policy which lasted for decades.

And so on and so forth.

 

You cherry picking historical bits to fit your false narrative is easy to counter.

 

In some posters' minds the Palestinians are not accountable for anything, not responsible for their own choices. Almost as if they are children. Other than in some books, children do not run states.

[Brickleberry]

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

Have we deflected to a history lesson. That has nothing to do with the ICJ ruling. This topic

 

 

LOL Elon Levy must have had to dig deep to find that answer.

 

Completely ignores the fact that Israel lost the case, and is currently being investigated for genocide. Even stronger case for the world, the Israeli judge voted to approve some of these measures too.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/icj-genocide-ruling-israel-gaza-war-rcna135615

Quote

Many of the measures were approved by an overwhelming majority of the judges, with an Israeli judge even voting in favor of two of the half dozen diktats imposed.

 

Quote

The International Court of Justice has found it is "plausible" that Israel has committed acts that violate the Genocide Convention. In a provisional order delivered by the court's president, Joan Donoghue, the court said Israel must ensure "with immediate effect" that its forces not commit any of the acts prohibited by the convention.

 

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, Brickleberry said:

 

LOL Elon Levy must have had to dig deep to find that answer.

 

Completely ignores the fact that Israel lost the case, and is currently being investigated for genocide. Even stronger case for the world, the Israeli judge voted to approve some of these measures too.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/icj-genocide-ruling-israel-gaza-war-rcna135615

 

 

You keep saying Israel lost the case. But Israel is still in Gaza eliminating the terrorists. Why do you find Elon funny?

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

You keep saying Israel lost the case. But Israel is still in Gaza eliminating the terrorists. Why do you find Elon funny?

 

The case was a hearing to determine if South Africa had standing to make the complaint and whether a dispute between SA and Israel existed. Israel tried to argue that it didn't. Israel lost and the court agreed to hear the case.

[coolcarer]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

The case was a hearing to determine if South Africa had standing to make the complaint and whether a dispute between SA and Israel existed. Israel tried to argue that it didn't. Israel lost and the court agreed to hear the case.

I know what South Africa wanted and we all know what it did not get. A ceasefire. Read my post again.

[Brickleberry]

9 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

You keep saying Israel lost the case. But Israel is still in Gaza eliminating the terrorists. Why do you find Elon funny?

Do you think Israel won? Is that why the court has said it is plausible that genocidal acts are being committed? Is that why they now have to fight this in the court for years to come?

 

Elon is the funniest man alive. I can't watch or listen to him anymore, because he spouts so much propaganda. Each time he mentions Hamas, he can't help himself but add at least one adjective and one adverb prior to uttering their name.

[Brickleberry]

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

I know what South Africa wanted and we all know what it did not get. A ceasefire. Read my post again.

 

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.

[ozimoron]

15 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

I know what South Africa wanted and we all know what it did not get. A ceasefire. Read my post again.

 

A ceasefire was an ambit claim. It was never likely. South Africa and the world got enough to satisfy them. An acknowledgment that genocide may have been committed and a direction to Israel that it has to take steps to prevent genocide. Far from just business as usual.

Edited January 27 by ozimoron

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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.

I know what it wanted. Do you think you are the only one with that info? How many pages in this topic so far where that is already discussed?

 

what was its main reason to make the complaint?

 

what did it not get?

 

At a two-day hearing this month, South Africa asked the court to issue provisional measures requiring Israel to immediately end its military campaign in Gaza, which began after the 7 October attacks by Hamas.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/26/icj-to-rule-on-south-africas-case-alleging-israeli-genocide-in-gaza

[coolcarer]

7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

Do you think Israel won? Is that why the court has said it is plausible that genocidal acts are being committed? Is that why they now have to fight this in the court for years to come?

 

Elon is the funniest man alive. I can't watch or listen to him anymore, because he spouts so much propaganda. Each time he mentions Hamas, he can't help himself but add at least one adjective and one adverb prior to uttering their name.

Ever thought that Elon has very good reason to feel or say that when mentioning Hamas? Again why do you find that funny

[Brickleberry]

12 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

I know what it wanted. Do you think you are the only one with that info? How many pages in this topic so far where that is already discussed?

 

what was its main reason to make the complaint?

 

what did it not get?

 

At a two-day hearing this month, South Africa asked the court to issue provisional measures requiring Israel to immediately end its military campaign in Gaza, which began after the 7 October attacks by Hamas.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/26/icj-to-rule-on-south-africas-case-alleging-israeli-genocide-in-gaza

 

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

Quote

ICJ to give interim ruling in Gaza genocide case against Israel

 

Edited January 27 by Brickleberry

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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

 

And? The same info is on the first page of this topic in the OP

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

The case was a hearing to determine if South Africa had standing to make the complaint and whether a dispute between SA and Israel existed. Israel tried to argue that it didn't. Israel lost and the court agreed to hear the case.

 

@ozimoron

 

Yes...and?

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

Do you think Israel won? Is that why the court has said it is plausible that genocidal acts are being committed? Is that why they now have to fight this in the court for years to come?

 

Elon is the funniest man alive. I can't watch or listen to him anymore, because he spouts so much propaganda. Each time he mentions Hamas, he can't help himself but add at least one adjective and one adverb prior to uttering their name.

 

It was neither a victory nor a defeat. Not everything falls neatly into place as you paint. It's a provisional step, not a final ruling. Arguing the case in years to come does not necessarily mean Israel will lose, or even that the case will not be dismissed later on. You're jumping the gun by leaps and bounds. More like wishful thinking.

 

I guess you like the red-masked Hamas spokesman better. Maybe turns you on?

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

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.

 

The ICJ's interim ruling upheld the less problematic (from Israel's point of view) points. The main dish South Africa was expecting was not served.

 

Spin away.

Edited January 27 by Morch

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

A ceasefire was an ambit claim. It was never likely. South Africa and the world got enough to satisfy them. An acknowledgment that genocide may have been committed and a direction to Israel that it has to take steps to prevent genocide. Far from just business as usual.

 

@ozimoron

 

Oh, now you do the co-opting bit of 'and the world'? Cute.

It's a provisional measure and decision, get over yourself.

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

Do you think Israel won? Is that why the court has said it is plausible that genocidal acts are being committed? Is that why they now have to fight this in the court for years to come?

 

Elon is the funniest man alive. I can't watch or listen to him anymore, because he spouts so much propaganda. Each time he mentions Hamas, he can't help himself but add at least one adjective and one adverb prior to uttering their name.

 

Me, I laugh when I read your clueless comments.

 

The guy was actually an activist in the anti-government protest movement before the war. Trying to paint him as some lick-spittle is amusing. Netnayahu's wife tried to meddle and terminate his employment, even, when she found out about it. Didn't go down too well.

[retarius]

Here is an extraordinary article from the Guardian which commits on the recent interim judgement from ICJ and the moral dilemma it poses for the West principally the US. It is thoughtful and thought-provoking and will be interesting to see how the US handle any popular, upcoming measures which are sure to be brought before the UN, and exposes the hypocrisy in the US's pro-Israel position. Read and enjoy.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/26/icj-gaza-decision-shores-up-rules-based-order-and-puts-west-to-test

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, retarius said:

Here is an extraordinary article from the Guardian which commits on the recent interim judgement from ICJ and the moral dilemma it poses for the West principally the US. It is thoughtful and thought-provoking and will be interesting to see how the US handle any popular, upcoming measures which are sure to be brought before the UN, and exposes the hypocrisy in the US's pro-Israel position. Read and enjoy.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/26/icj-gaza-decision-shores-up-rules-based-order-and-puts-west-to-test

 

 

Other than it fits your agenda, how is this opinion column 'extraordinary'?