Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

I have no issue with Israel mounting military efforts to remove Hamas from Gaza (within the rules of war) to the extent they can no longer pose a physical threat to Israel or the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel would also be justified in expecting it to be kept that way for the forseeable future.

However, the issue I have is the way in which Israel is prosecuting this war to the detriment of the civilian population.

My comments earlier about Hamas not being a State/country ref the ICJ were only stating fact. Not that Hamas should/could be dealt with by other means.

Any alleged war crimes by either Hamas or Israel committed should be investigated and prosecuted either locally or through the ICC or ICJ.

Hope that clears it up.

For balance:

Discussions on "the day after" are at an early stage but posturing has begun. Hopefully quick progress will be made to recover Gaza - physically, mentally and politically.

However, I doubt 80% of Gazans would be up for a peace agreement with Israel as they were in 2006.

The Israeli campaign continues to be a strategic failure as well as a humanitarian one.

Seems that criticism of Israel is no longer anti-Semitism but is indicative of being part of Hamas and/or "terrorist organisations".

Israeli officials have criticised Turkey's actions towards Jehezkel.

Defence Minister Yadav Gallant said Israel had supported Turkey in last year's earthquakes, accusing Turkey of "an expression of hypocrisy".

"In its actions, Turkey serves as the executive arm of Hamas," he said.

In reference to the ICJ case:

In a statement from New York, Israel’s UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan called the case a “new moral low” and said that by taking it on, “the UN and its institutions have become weapons in service of terrorist organisations.”

Israel accused SA of “functioning as the legal arm of the Hamas terrorist organisation”, labelling the International Court of Justice (ICJ) action “one of the greatest shows of hypocrisy in history”.

Lior Haiat, spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the South African lawyers were “Hamas’ representatives in the court”. He added: “South Africa seeks to allow Hamas to return to commit the war crimes, crimes against humanity and sexual crimes they committed repeatedly on 7 October, as its leaders have stated.

Not all of them were Jews and not all of them were killed by Hamas. Facts matter.

It's interesting that you focus on the Jews - you ok with non Jewish Israeli citizens being killed? Or just the Jews?

Israel using dumb bombs and bombs of 2000lb bombs with a kill radius of 365 metres is not an indication of indiscriminate killing in such a densely populated area?

I'll ask you again seeing as you brought percentages into the mix - what is your red line percentage for civilian deaths? 2%? 5%? 10%?

And I think you'll find more than the right wingers have made genocidal statements - Netanyahu for one. Even President Herzog had a go. Israelis have stated they want to wipe out all Palestinians - they have also used the phrase "from the river to the sea".

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Why do you think mentioning the Hannibal directive and comments from the prime minister and president etc is splitting hairs?

Care to answer the question on genocide?

I read a report today - I forget where, probably Haaretz. The report said they felt the ICJ would put in place interim measures. I thought that would be the indicative of the ICJ clearly erring towards genocide being proven and ultimately their probable judgment in the years to come. It does not appear to work that way.

I found another article from the Guardian which explains in more detail what the ICJ could do. The paragraphs I quote below piqued my interest inasmuch as it seems (as a layman) that the ICJ can judge that interim measures are required but that in a few year's time, they *could* find an accusation of genocide as unproven.

However, this campaign is still far from over. On the basis of continuing reports of lack of food, water, fuel, medical aid and continuing bombing, the death toll is likely to be much higher than it currently is. In addition to the loss of habitable structures and infrastructure, the overall impact on the Gazan civilian population in, say 12 months time, could certainly cross the genocide threshold in the view of the court.

Bear in mind that the third prohibited act of the convention genocide is distinguished from the genocidal act of killing because the deaths are not immediate (or may not even come to pass), but rather create circumstances that do not support prolonged life. Well over 50,000 Palestinians have been injured. I'd imagine many of those injuries would be life shortening.

By seeking provisional relief under article 74 of the court, as opposed to a definitive ruling, South Africa can lower the threshold of what it is required to prove before the court provides interim relief, and possibly minimise some of the prime facie jurisdictional issues facing the court.

Indeed, South Africa argues “the court is not required to ascertain whether any violation of Israel’s obligations under the genocide convention has occurred.

“Importantly, as previously held by the court, ‘such a finding, which would notably depend on the assessment of the existence of an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group … [of Palestinians] as such, could be made by the court only at the stage of the examination of the merits of the present case.’

“Instead, ‘what the court is required to do at the stage of making an order on provisional measures is to establish whether the acts complained of … are capable of falling within the provisions of the genocide convention’.

“The court does not have to determine that all of the acts complained of are capable of falling within the provisions of the convention.” It suffices that “at least some of the acts alleged … are capable of falling within the provisions of the convention”.

Equally, the court does not need to ascertain whether the existence of a genocidal intent is the only inference to be drawn from the material before the court, as “this requirement would amount to the court making a determination on the merits”.

South Africa seeks to prove that the measures Israel has taken go beyond self-defence and into the destruction of the Palestinians.

Israel are already claiming this - reported today that one division of IDF has left Gaza.

And of course, winding down is what they will say they will do. What they will do in reality is another matter.

Regardless of actual military action, Israel is still restricting humanitarian supplies into Gaza.

I've asked you twice before but I'll ask again seeing as you are also asking the question.

Whose side are you on? Jews or Israelis?

The genocide denial is also disgusting.

Pure speculation on my part but I think ICJ, if they specify interim measures, will focus on the humanitarian aspect.

I think they may specify actions on humanitarian aid and military action that is directly targeted at Hamas (no more 2000lb or dumb bombs). I would also hope they will give a direction on the return of hostages. They may perhaps direct a humanitarian pause but I'm not sure they go the full hog and direct a ceasefire.

I suspect Israel will reject/ignore some or all of the directions and it's almost certain Hamas would ignore the return of hostages.