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

Netanyahu's remark, quoted below, seems to be a faux pas.

Haaretz:

Israel's foreign ministry said that Israel remains committed to abide by international law. PM Netanyahu said the court's decision "rightly rejected the outrageous demand to deny" Israel the right to basic self-defense, but added that the court's willingness to discuss the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza "is a mark of disgrace that will not be erased for generations."

If Hamas would release the hostages it would surely intensify the pressure on Israel. As long as they don't Israel will use it as the main reason for the bombing. Hamas do not want this war to end.

Good point. That seems to be the Hamas position. They are using them as a bargaining chip, as they always have.

There is hope though that the 30 day pause, with specified Israeli and Palestinian releases, will calm things down enough to allow humanitarian aid to get into Gaza.

Once all hostages are released, Israel will still continue their action against Hamas.

But with the levelling of Gaza, you'd have to question the Israeli bona fides about their actions solely being associated with hostage releases and Hamas destruction.

I can't see how bulldozing cemeteries or demolishing universities and courthouses are aligned to those objectives.

And neither did the ICJ.

Anyone know why the UN special representative on sexual violence is going to the West Bank?

Haaretz

The U.S. has created a channel with Israel to discuss concerns over incidents in Gaza in which civilians have been killed or wounded by the IDF or civilian facilities have been targeted, two U.S. officials told Reuters.

The UN special representative on sexual violence in conflict will arrive in Israel on Monday to collect information on crimes committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7and will also visit the West Bank, her office said.

Netenyahu makes the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion look like The Hungry Catarpillar

You’re not big into making evidence based judgements are you?

“It doesn't justify the Israeli invoking of self defence.”

Eh?

I can see how other posters can argue that the actions of the IDF may go beyond self defence but to suggest self defence after Oct 7th is not justified is completely unreasonable.

Sometimes posters make good and fair points and the chuck in dumb stuff which ruins it.

We could soon be accused of being an antisemitic country too.

(CNN) Pressure mounting on Netanyahu =

And in Israel, Netanyahu faces domestic opposition: More than 40 senior former Israeli national security officials, celebrated scientists and prominent business leaders have sent a letter to Israel’s president and speaker of parliament demanding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu be removed from office for posing what they say is an “existential” threat to the country. They say Netanyahu is responsible for “creating the circumstances” that led to the massacre in Israel on October 7. “The victim’s blood is on Netanyahu’s hands,” the letter reads. It comes as other political figures have also called for fresh elections, saying the public has no trust in its government.

See that’s a different argument than saying it didn’t justify self defence. At least your revised position is arguable. What you said above was not. Glad you have caught on now.

Is it not obvious that the more Israel try and crush a Palestinian insurgence (as they see it) the more they are actually turning Palestinians against them along with moderates around the world.

I mean it’s fairly obvious no?

Eh no, I don't think you actually read the ruling. Don't be fooled by the spin being put on this ruling by pro-Palestinian media.

What the court said was ""At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention,". Key words in that sentence from a legal point of view are "alleged" thereby not proven, and "appear to be capable of", which again is less than what you think it is. Certainly, the ICJ did not

Go back to what I have said all along:

(1) The hostages taken on October 7th must be immediately released because that is a war crime - The ICJ ruled that they must be released immediately and unconditionally. I was correct on that point. Incidentally, the ICJ made no mention of Palestinian prisoners in Israel, despite the numerous posts on here claiming they were the same. So pretty much I was correct again about that being a red herring.

(2) Israel has a right to defend itself against the October 7th terrorist attack and is entitled to enter Gaza to do so - By not ordering a ceasefire, the ICJ have confirmed this to be the case. Once again, I was correct under international law.

(3) There is no proof that Israel has committed war crimes or genocide given the nature of its self-defence - This is a direct quote from the court ruling: "The court does not have the evidence to decide whether or not Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, but directs Israel to comply with its obligations under the Genocide Convention—to which Israel, as a party to the Genocide Convention since 1950, has long committed itself." Once again, in pointing out that Israel's acts would need investigation and that there are doubts that they broke international law (unlike the clear and unequivocal evidence that Hamas broke international law), and that it would take a long time to determine this under international law, I was also correct.

Now, remember, I haven't posted on this since before Christmas, I was fed up with the constant lies and clearly anti-semitic posts which didn't understand international law, and remember, I also said that I wasn't expressing support for what Israel was doing (despite attempts to label me as such).

Finally, the ICJ is a court under the United Nations. Today, the United Nations is facing a crisis, as it appears that one of its agencies was complicit in the committal of terrorist actions. If anything poses a challenge to international law, it is that the self-proclaimed arbiter of international law took part in illegal terrorist actions.

Don't bother replying as I won't be engaging with the nonsense on this thread, just here to point out that I was correct in what I said about international law all along.

I think it was obvious they just have evacuated civilians from Gaza before bombing the place, it would had taken time but at the moment sure they can kill militants with bombs but only at the cost of killing a lot of innocents. They probably just count every male killed of military age as a militant.

So is it okay when the Israeli Prime Minister used similar wording in a recent speech he gave? If I'm not mistaken, he said along the lines of everything west of the River Jordan should be Israeli.

I've already explained how I see the meaning of the words in my signature and I'm sure many others share similar sentiments. Remember which country is under investigation by the ICJ for genocide.