Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
19159169189209211266

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,826 ✭✭✭SeanW


    The funny thing about war is that tends to be about "sides" and if you have a position on an ongoing war, it's almost impossible not to "pick a team."

    And this war is no different, there are two sides to it. Israelis (mostly Jews), and those who want to wipe them out. It really is that simple. "Picking a team" might not be easy, but the problem is simple.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Well that is completely incorrect.

    It is perfectly possible (and most would say more normal and usual) for external parties to be against both sides in a conflict continuing.....That's why the UN was set up etc.

    Saying to one party "ah will ya calm down killing them other lads" is not the same as saying "die die you scum. We're going to kill all of you".


    And, at the risk of blowing your mind, just to let you know that even though you've made it clear that you don't want any "Jews" to be killed, it would be actually possible for you to simultaneously not want any Muslims or Christians or whatever to be killed too!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    But you said you don't want the Jews dead. You ok with the 25% non Jewish Israelis dying?

    And I'm not sure what you mean "almost by definition"? What definition?

    And would have thought that if there is a definition, it either is or isn't. Not almost?

    could be reading you wrong of course.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    I didn't say they were?

    i was answering another poster who said Hamas should be brought to the ICJ.

    Actually, I would probably have been closer to the mark using "countries".

    I actually wasn't being pedantic. Just stating what cases the ICJ entertains. They certainly would not hear a case against a terrorist organisation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,512 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    But Hamas are the legal government of Gaza, so it's not quite that clear. It's not like trying to bring, say, the IRA to justice there.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    Let me help any poster who doesn't know what the ICJ is or does (this was previously posted):

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ; French: Cour internationale de justiceCIJ), also called the World Court,[1] is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN).[2] It settles disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. The ICJ is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law (subject to Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice).




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    Apologies to the original poster - I meant Houthis.

    For the follow on posts, the Houthis are not a state/country either.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,512 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    In that case, fair enough, I agree.

    It's surprising how often posters do treat Hamas as "just" another terror group, in terms of not expecting them to obey international law while accusing Israel of, eh, not respecting international law. The fact that they run a state and therefore have access to funds, run a police force etc IMO makes a difference to what can/should be expected of them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    I have said this previously but will repeat seeing as there seems to be some confusion as regards the ICJ.

    SA and Israel (and many more countries/states) are signatories to the convention on genocide.

    Signatories have a duty to prevent genocide - either by not engaging in it themselves or reporting those who they believe are perpetrating it. It is the ICJ that hears these cases (disputes between states/countries). The ICJ rule on the case, which is legally binding. The ICJ has no enforcement mechanism however so, as has happened before, countries can ignore findings. But international condemnation would undoubtedly follow.

    In the case last week, the ruling on genocide will likely not be given for a few years. However, SA have asked for the implementation of interim measures. Israel could ignore both any interim measures imposed and a ruling of committing genocide should either or both of those transpire.

    The panel of judges are supplemented, in this case, by a SA judge and an Israeli judge (who survived the holocaust).

    The ICJ is not known for partiality.

    The ICj does not hear cases other than those between states/countries. So the Houthis, Hamas and similar "organisations" would not find themselves in front of the ICJ.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    I cant speak for others but I have stated here before that Hamas should be neutralised and any combatants found to have committed crimes prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    I include the IDF in that statement too.

    I'm not a lawyer but I'd expect any arrested combatant (both sides) in this conflict to be prosecuted in Israel. Whether that's a criminal court or military court, I don't know. But if found guilty, the maximum allowable sentence should be handed down.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Just to add, although it has no enforcement ability, if Israel ignored an interim order to cease, SA could bring it to the UN security council to take action against Israel. In the event of that happening, the belief is that the US, and perhaps the UK, would veto any action against Israel



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    There may be two "sides" but there are also combatants and civilians.

    If Israel and Hamas wanted to go and kick the living beejaysus out of each other in the desert, that'd be grand.

    But for both Israel and Gaza civilians, they are paying a price. In the case of Gaza, an unacceptable and unprecedented price since the last Great War.

    As ever, your stance is crystal clear. You are happy to watch the genocide of Gaza continue unabated as long as the Jews are not driven into the sea.

    Don't mind the civilians in Gaza, don't mind the 25% of Israelis who are not Jews.

    So yes, the problem in your mind is simple. We see it clearly.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,090 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    So are we at the stage now we're anyone that believes Israel are at war, and are entitled to defend themselves, are somehow islamophobic and hate Muslims?

    is that the general argument now?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,211 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    You know the rest of civilised society is fed up with the Israeli narrative about Jews and their persecution. It's had it's day, history in the dusty and dirty pages of the past.

    In the current world we live, Israel is entirely the author of it's own misfortune.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,638 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Yep. A new level of comedy altogether.

    Any criticism of terrorism is based on racism now.



  • Registered Users Posts: 723 ✭✭✭Slightly Kwackers


    Britain had no right to sell Palestine to the Jews thus granting an entitlement based on lineage. Would you think it right if France sold Dublin to the Germans and Germans from all over the world came to displace Dubliners and bung them in refugee camps in the Isle of Man?

    Your alternative is accept invasion? The strongest at the time wins, might is right and shut up and take it?

    The Romans invaded Britain but at least they were sporting about the arrangement, they didn't sell Wales to the Eskimo's and let them fill the place with igloos.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    Correct on part I and I'd concur in principle with part II - though I'd hope they only abstain - as they did a few weeks back.

    Israel might make it easy for them though:

    "No one will stop us - not The Hague, not the Axis of Evil and no one else. It is possible and necessary to continue until victory and we will do it," Mr Netanyahu told a televised press conference as the war in Gaza moves into its 100th day on Sunday.

    As civilian deaths continue to rack up, the chance of a veto must diminish. Abstention would look bad but a veto would smack of hypocrisy to normal thinking people.

    I suppose it depends on the interim measures if there were some.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    I don't believe the British sold Palestine to the Jews. But then your sources would presumably be better than mine if you'd like to share them?

    I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,090 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    Well, they kind of did. The mandate for Palestine required Britain to put the balfour agreement into effect. So they were required to give a home to the Jewish people.

    Obviously France could never sell Dublin, seeing as it was not under their control ever 🙄but Britain could, before 1921 do whatever they wanted with Ireland.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,189 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    And those who believes Israel is committing atrocities in Gaza and The West Bank are anti semites and hate Jews?

    That has been a very common stance since the early days of this thread (note, not an argument).



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,649 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Netanyahu fears losing the ICJ case? Quote is accurate btw - widely reported from a TV address he made this evening.




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,192 ✭✭✭dmcdona


    Also on RTE

    The implications of interim measures being handed down would imply that the judges are minded toward a finding of genocide. That would be a devastating result for Israel. Especially as their ad hoc judge is a survivor of the holocaust.

    If Israel believe interim measures are more likely than not, I can imagine they will now throw everything they have at Gaza before that finding is published. The atrocities may well put what has happened up to now in the ha'penny place.

    I hope I am wrong.



  • Registered Users Posts: 723 ✭✭✭Slightly Kwackers


    Exactly. Who could blame the Irish for defending the land they lived on for many generations and trying to repel the "strangers".

    I don't think the Palestinians voted for the British and international law is still being broken by Jewish settlers with no repercussions as they engage in continual Israeli expansion.

    Without law, there is terrorism or as the more sympathetic to the situation like to think "freedom fighting".

    One is a simple soul, I can see things easily from a Palestinian position. You see I am on the families land right now, even though I was born in and grew up in England. It isn't much, it has a house and a fragmented farm. Fragmented I am told because the English Landlord did not want to give my Irish ancestors their land back in the easiest most economically farmed form.

    So I know what my family went through, those that emigrated, those that were made homeless and left to the charity of relatives. It provides a bit of empathy with people thrown out of their homes, off their land and given no legal rights to appeal.

    They might be a different religion, a different culture, but they are no less human than myself and therefore I want justice for them too. Bombing the crap out of people is not justice.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,826 ✭✭✭SeanW




  • Registered Users Posts: 17,189 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭nachouser


    So, the UK hates Jews now? Or could it possibly be more nuanced than that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,090 ✭✭✭suvigirl


    What land has Israel stolen in Gaza?

    The rest of the post is romantic rubbish, plenty of us grew up in England and 200 years ago our families had more.

    there no excuse for terrorism



  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Carlito Brigantes Tale


    Let's not forget America supports this creep, a guy who doesn't respect the international rule of law or the Haque.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,649 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    It certainly would suggest that he fears Israel losing the case. Why would he ridicule the ICJ if he felt confident of winning?

    I've heard some legal experts saying an interim judgement against Israel would be profoundly significant. It would mean any country continuing to provide military support to Israel after the ruling would be a party to genocide and in clear breach of the ICJ ruling.



Advertisement