Can you show us one post where you criticize Hamas for holding hostages in direct violation of the ICJ? For that matter, any posts that explain your repeated posts advocating using them as bargaining chips that fly in the face of both the ICJ and ICC.
Pro Hamas in the west - and their adventures
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
20% of American youth also think the Holocaust is a myth. That must make you happy too.
It might be cool on tiktok to cheer the Houthis but that doesn't change the fact they are an extremely repressive regime that abuses and kidnaps women and is culpable for a big chunk of the 350,000 dead in their civil war who you're happy to support.
Still pushing that trope that its antisemitic to be against genocide?
This is from the head of the WHO.
The ICJ ordered 4 Provisional Measures.
All 4 pertain to Israel, none to Hamas.
Hamas is abiding by the ICJ ruling, Israel is not.
The ICJ ordered by Provisional Measure that Israel 'prevent' killing Palestinians in Gaza.
No.
They were about committing crimes that fit into the definition of genocide.
The whole court case was about genocide and if it was plausible, remember?
Or is it suddenly not about genocide now because that would make it more convenient for you.
Yes.
This is an order to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention..
You know... the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The one that has this text as Article II.
Yup, in particular a, b, and c.
Those are the ones they want them to pay particular attention to within the scope of Article II, because right now Israel is killing members of the group and causing serious bodily harm on the group and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction (by blocking humanitarian aid).
Whether or not those three things are being done with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group (specifically noted, as you boldface, to be the Palestinians in Gaza) is going to determine whether or not the court determines if Israel is, in fact, committing genocide.
You are wrong. It reads that specifically "in accordance with the articles".
A ceasefire is absolutely the easiest and most complete way to comply with the order.
But they didn't actually order Israel to stop killing Palestinians as in "any death of a Palestinian from here on out is a violation of the order".
There are two parts of the ruling.
1) They ruled whether South Africa's case that Israel is committing genocide is 'plausible'
2) They voted on Provisional Measures that Israel has to abide by
Those are two separate items.
So yes, the accusation and trial will all be about committing genocide.
As you keep pointing out, they weren't ruling on whether Israel was committing genocide, they were ruling on whether South Africa's case was 'plausible'. As such there is no guilty charge that they can use to say 'stop committing genocide' as they haven't ruled whether Israel is committing genocide yet.
Yes, that will be determined in the court case, whether there is clear intent to commit genocide.
That is irrelevant to the Provisional Measures.
Here I think you're wrong. They are stating they have the right to order provisional measures 'in accordance with the articles'. They are not saying Israel has the right to continue killing Palestinians in Gaza as long as they don't have the intent to kill them all. They are saying the case is plausible so Israel must in particular 'prevent' killing Palestinians in Gaza. Not 'prevent killing with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, Palestinians in Gaza. That is a qualifier that is not in the ruling. The ruling is pretty clearly Israel must 'prevent' killing Palestinians in Gaza.
The ruling is saying:
Israel must prevent committing all acts within the Genocide Convention on Palestinians in Gaza and in particular must prevent killing members of the group. Putting the 'in particular' at the end of the sentence says that Israel must 'in particular' not kill Palestinians in Gaza.
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
I have no idea how you can come up with that result given the language stated above.
Even at best you would have to argue that Israel is to prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza 'in whole or in part'.
How is killing any Palestinian not killing 'in part' of the group?
And that's the most favourable way I can interpret the language along your lines.
But its saying Israel must in particular prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza.
...posting real photos. If they had the truth on their side they wouldn't need to post fake shit.
Why do you NEVER talk about Hamas defying the ICJ and retaining the hostages? What is your opinion on Hamas not returning the hostages as the ICJ ordered? (p.s. to you and your buddies. The ICJ did not use language like "prevent retaining the hostages" to mean return the hostages. They use clear language. You and kaut are so full of shit with your unnecessary and laughable interpretations.)
Cowardice is a trait wherein excessive fear prevents an individual from taking a risk or facing danger. It is the opposite of courage. As a label, "cowardice" indicates a failure of character in the face of a challenge. One who succumbs to cowardice is known as a coward. Wikipedia
Last edited:
I'm glad we agree on this.
So you will stop saying that they were ordered to stop committing genocide then, since it wasn't ruled upon?
You are incorrect.
Pretty sure I'm not, though.
Not in the sense you mean it - "any killing of any Palestinian is a violation of this order".
You're wrong.
By reading the ICJ order.
Because the demand to return the hostages was not Provisional. It was an absolute order.
No, you quote the conclusion but ignore the Provisional Measures, which are the actual orders Israel must obey.
If you can convince me I'm wrong, which you haven't yet done, I'll change my language.
These are all variations of your claim you are right, but its based off a basic error.
On this board you are one of the most careful people with language and intent, which makes me curious why you would make such a basic error.
This quote below is from the ruling, its the conclusion of the ruling. They are concluding that they have jurisdiction and Israel must obey the Convention and not commit genocide. But its not part of the ruling where they voted on actions that Israel must do, that's the Provisional Measures.
You quote point 78, the conclusions, but ignore all points following, which are the orders given as Provisional Measures.
This clipping, unsourced, suggest to me that you have done shoddy research. Did you actually go to the full ruling?
I realized I've been quoting from the press release and it didn't include this section, so I took the time to go directly to the ICJ website.
The press release is here:
The full ruling is here:
Your argument rests on stopping reading the ruling at point 78 and not reading to the Provisional Measures, which are the actual orders given to Israel and the text I keep quoting.
Order of 26 January 2024
86. For these reasons,
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:
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(a) killing 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
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
IN FAVOUR: PresidentDonoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; JudgesTomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;
AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
(2) By fifteen votes to two,
The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;
IN FAVOUR: PresidentDonoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; JudgesTomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;
AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
That's the text directly copied from the ruling starting at point 86.
Those are part of the orders given as Provisional Measures to Israel, which they must obey.
It says Israel must 'prevent' in particular killing Palestinians in Gaza.
Go ahead, and try to argue why you think the conclusions and not the Provisional Measures are the orders Israel must obey.
I could see how two people giving someone the finger must be the most upsetting news to you today.
You are antisemitic because you are for the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Israel's Jews and you are anti-Arab because you think they are too far beneath you to criticize.
You must be the only person so deeply warped to claim it's antisemitic to condemn your antisemitism.
Can you show us one post where you criticize Hamas for holding hostages in direct violation of the ICJ? For that matter, any posts that explain your repeated posts advocating using them as bargaining chips that fly in the face of both the ICJ and ICC.
