Ashley Madison

Pro Hamas in the west - and their adventures

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,215
6,939
113
Zionism is a foreign colonial movement.
Like Russia invading Ukraine.
Like Nazi Germany invading Poland.

Israel has nothing to compare themselves with the UK.
Unless you want to suggest that Gaza is like Ireland in that comparison, which also explains Irish support.

You keep making up nonsensical claims to justify your hatred and desire to have Jews ethnically cleansed.

But Yes, Russia's attack on Ukraine, Nazi Germany's attack on Poland, and Hamas' attack on Israel share a lot of characteristics.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,156
23,665
113
Gee, you sure have spent a shitload of time in justifying Hamas' use of hostages even though the ICJ directly ruled Hamas must immediately and unconditionally release their hostages.
The ICJ also ruled that Israel must prevent the killing of Palestinians allow all aid through.
Is that happening or do you think they'll go to trial for genocide?

 

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
19,045
5,431
113
Lewiston, NY
No, Thankfully Hamas was stopped.


I am comparing your denial of the intentional butchery of civilians and sexual violence against women to your kin in the Klan denying that the Holocaust happened.
Could you two take it outside or something? BTW, both of you are fundamentally wrong!(n)...
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
33,660
63,345
113
They didn't use the word 'stop', I agree.
They reported that South Africa's case that Israel is committing genocide is 'plausible' and ordered Israel to not commit genocide, save all records, arrest inciters and repot back in 30 days. So they ordered Israel not do an act they said they are 'plausibly' committing. The only way that doesn't mean stop the genocide is if you believe that Israel is not committing genocide.
You are torturing the English language and logic to get to this point.
It doesn't meant that.
You may want it to, but it just doesn't.

The only way for you to argue it means they didn't say stop is for you to also argue that what the ICJ and a US court said is 'plausibly' happening is not happening at all.
Yes, "plausibly" is not a statement that it is happening.
Especially in a court of law.

This is not a difficult concept.

What do you think it means when the ICJ's specific language says Israel must prevent:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental har to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calcuated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

If the ICJ says Israel must stop doing those acts how is not immediately ceasing fire not a breach of the ICJ ruling?
Because the ICJ didn't order those things.
It ordered those things with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part - that's the standard by the conventions.
In other words, Israel is allowed to keep killing people from the group and inflicting mental harm on them as long as the purpose of that is not with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part.

That is what the follow up trial will be about - can anyone prove that genocide is - in fact - Israel's intent.
This trial said, "yes, it is plausible that it is - we can't rule that out, so we need to go and find out for sure".

That you think it is a forgone conclusion is fine, but that isn't actually what the court said.
This is why Israel continuing the bombing that it was notably not told to stop doing is not a violation of the ICJ order unless you already take as axiomatically true that Israel is doing this campaign with genocidal intent.

South Africa explicitly asked that the ICJ order a ceasefire and cessation of all military activities.
It did not.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,156
23,665
113
You are torturing the English language and logic to get to this point.
It doesn't meant that.
You may want it to, but it just doesn't.
It does mean this when you read the request for provisional measures.


Yes, "plausibly" is not a statement that it is happening.
Especially in a court of law.

This is not a difficult concept.
Plausible means that there is grounds for South Africa's case, which is why they voted to have Israel abide by 4 provisional measures.


Because the ICJ didn't order those things.
It ordered those things with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part - that's the standard by the conventions.
In other words, Israel is allowed to keep killing people from the group and inflicting mental harm on them as long as the purpose of that is not with the intent to destroy the group in whole or in part.

That is what the follow up trial will be about - can anyone prove that genocide is - in fact - Israel's intent.
This trial said, "yes, it is plausible that it is - we can't rule that out, so we need to go and find out for sure".

That you think it is a forgone conclusion is fine, but that isn't actually what the court said.
This is why Israel continuing the bombing that it was notably not told to stop doing is not a violation of the ICJ order unless you already take as axiomatically true that Israel is doing this campaign with genocidal intent.

South Africa explicitly asked that the ICJ order a ceasefire and cessation of all military activities.
It did not.
No, you are wrong here. You quoted the convention 'with intent to destroy the group in whole or in part', that was part of South Africa's case accusing Israel of genocide. What you are ignoring here is the actual text of the Provisional Measures that the ICJ voted for.

The provisional measures weren't about committing crimes that fit into the definition of genocide, they were actual orders to not 'kill members of the group'.

The Court indicates provisional measures


In its Order, which has binding effect, the Court indicates the following provisional measures:


“(1) By fifteen votes to two,

The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:

(a) killing members of the group;

(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and

In the provisional measures Israel is ordered to prevent 'killing members of the group [Palestinians in Gaza]. There is no qualifier of 'with the intent to destroy', instead the ruling reads that Israel, as signatory to the Convention, must prevent 'killing Palestinians in Gaza', along with not injuring them or depriving them from aid.

The order is not to commit genocide, the order is to prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza.
The only way that can seriously happen is with a ceasefire.

Measure 2 says that Israel must ensure its military does not commit any of the acts prohibited in Measure 1.
Measure 3 says Israel must punish those who incite genocide.
Measure 4 says Israel must allow aid and food in.
Measure 5 says Israel must save all evidence for trial.

The only way Israel and its military can prevent 'killing Palestinians in Gaza' is with a ceasefire.
 
Toronto Escorts