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.
Pro Hamas in the west - and their adventures
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
No. I'm calling you and anti-Semite and I'm calling that clown you keep quoting an anti-Semite since she believes Jews have subjugated America and Europe. You might as well go back to wearing your pointy hood.
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.
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.
Bummer that the extremely theocratic and massive human rights abuser Houthis are being lauded by a bunch of idiots.
And once again Frank is happy with anti-Israel protests targeting the Jewish community.
Are you seriously trying to justify the murder, disappearance and crippling of 100,000 Palestinians because you think they shouldn't be there?
Bummer that the Houthis are more liked than Israelis right now.
You've lost the youth.
The court made B'nai Brith pay the protesters for saying and trying to do that.
You need a new story.
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?
Could you two take it outside or something? BTW, both of you are fundamentally wrong!
...
Today you're mad that protests against genocide are still going on?
Think how pissed Palestinians are living through genocide.
Any decent human being should be protesting these horrors.
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.
Yes, "plausibly" is not a statement that it is happening.
Especially in a court of law.
This is not a difficult concept.
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.
It does mean this when you read the request for provisional measures.
Plausible means that there is grounds for South Africa's case, which is why they voted to have Israel abide by 4 provisional measures.
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.
