13 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

If you are going to deny that Iran has been the primary benefactor of Hamas, then you cannot be taken seriously. You have an overt political bias. There are multiple sources that confirm the relationship between Hamas and Iran. Iran has repeatedly stated that Hamas is part of its Axis of resistance. Even anti Israel Wikipedia has its first paragraph Since the early 1990s, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been sponsoring Hamas with military aid, training and financial aid. Iran has remained a key patron of Hamas, providing them with funds, weapons, and training.

There is no starvation in Gaza. Again you have no credibility, because you make an intentional inaccurate statement. The 4 groups who promoted the claim that Gaza was on the edge of starvation, (and who have a demonstrable anti Israel bias) acknowledged quite the opposite.

The latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC- FAO, UNICEF, WFP and WHO) analysis for Gaza confirms that no areas of the Strip are currently classified in famine following the October ceasefire and improved humanitarian and commercial access. 19 December 2025

If there are food shortages it is because of the Hamas control of distribution. That is a Gaza problem, not an Israeli problem. Hamas was hoarding food for its loyalists and militants.

Your dismissal of the mass slaughter in Iran is revealing. An estimated 36,000+ people were killed in 400 cities across Iran during the recent 4 weeks. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601255198 The estimate of 50,000 includes the deaths (and disappearances of Iranians in the months leading up to the January protests.

And yes, trump's intervention stopped the war in Gaza. had he not done what he did, that was would be ongoing today. The handful of people that you say are being killed are almost always people intending to attack Israel or other Gazans. It was Hamas that started slaughtering rival clan members shortly after the truce went into effect. Israel wasn't telling the Hamas personnel to emerge from the tunnels in Rafah and to attack the IDF.

Why did Hamas try to launch an attack in Rafah right before the border was to reopen? What were they trying to do? Block additional aid from entering or stop Gazans from leaving for medical care in Egypt?

You don't half have blinkers on, wake up. Listen to some experts

13 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

What's your point? The plausibility statement was not a finding nor a judgement. It was a statement that the allegations were plausible and that a case could proceed.

So they have a case that Israel action was genocide. That’s a great point.

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

So they have a case that Israel action was genocide. That’s a great point.

No, you have made a conclusion that is not supported by the proceedings.The Court did make any rulings. South Africa brought a case, and offered preliminary information that met the basic requirements to file a case. It is relatively easy to support a claim of the possibility of a violation, because the burden of proof is set quite low. It is not the same as finding a party to be guilty of an illegal act. Being accused of a crime does not mean that the defendant is guilty of the crime.

10 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

No, you have made a conclusion that is not supported by the proceedings.The Court did make any rulings. South Africa brought a case, and offered preliminary information that met the basic requirements to file a case. It is relatively easy to support a claim of the possibility of a violation, because the burden of proof is set quite low. It is not the same as finding a party to be guilty of an illegal act. Being accused of a crime does not mean that the defendant is guilty of the crime.

ICJ concluded that the case was plausible that meant it is likely to be true.

In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”

31 minutes ago, JimCM said:

You don't half have blinkers on, wake up. Listen to some experts

As is your fashion, you have dumped a subject item, that does not support a statement that Iran is not a supporter and principal backer of Hamas. John Mearsheimer's opinions on the subject are self serving and are not shared by actual experts on terrorism. It is fascinating how you are so adamant in your defense of the barbaric and brutal Iranian regime.

34 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

ICJ concluded that the case was plausible that meant it is likely to be true.

In January, the ICJ delivered an interim judgement - and one key paragraph from the ruling drew the most attention: “In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances... are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible.”

This was interpreted by many, including some legal commentators, to mean that the court had concluded that the claim that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza was “plausible”

The people making the conclusion were those who wanted to claim a genocide. If the court had found that the claim of genocide was likely to be true, it would have stated that clearly.

20 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

In early 2024, the ICJ ruled it plausible that Israe;'s actions could infringe the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Do also remember that the prime minister and his buddy have international ICC warrants out for their arrests on charges of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

And now they're back to massacring homeless women and children en masse.

No one cares about Gaza any more. Trump has brought 'peace' to the region. 😠