Will NATO bomb the Houthis??

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
FYI, Hamas has been accused of the crime of genocide as well as the US, Canada, U.K. ETC ,depending on who is doing the accusing.
Don't forget Russia accused Ukraine of it as well as vice versa.
The term genocide is being thrown around like a frizbee recently.

Just an addition, the US has in the past been pronounced guilty of genocide by an International Tribunal but not in relation to anything current.
From the Library of Congress:
https://www.loc.gov/item/powmia/pwmaster_120783/
Sure, there have been accusations but accusations that result in trial at the ICJ carry more weight.
The US may still veto any UN SC resolutions that result from a ruling, but it still carries more weight.
Right now Israel has the 30 day warning and the US, UK, Canada and Germany were just accused of complicity in genocide in a submission from Nicarauga.

It wasn't UN resolutions that ended South African apartheid, it was sanctions.
That starts slowly and builds, as its started now for Israel.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
And what did they do? They didn't say Israel committed genocide...on the other hand d, they confirmed hamas took hostages and stated hamas should release them without any condition....you dismiss the statement....sounds like you don't care what the ICJ rulings ... LOL
Rich, just stop commenting on the ICJ ruling until you read it.
Your comments are just so out of touch.

The ICJ issued provisional measures towards Israel only, not Hamas.
 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,855
5,645
113
Sure, there have been accusations but accusations that result in trial at the ICJ carry more weight.
The US may still veto any UN SC resolutions that result from a ruling, but it still carries more weight.
Right now Israel has the 30 day warning and the US, UK, Canada and Germany were just accused of complicity in genocide in a submission from Nicarauga.

It wasn't UN resolutions that ended South African apartheid, it was sanctions.
That starts slowly and builds, as its started now for Israel.
Simply put everyone is accusing their sworn enemies of genocide depending on which side you are on, the only difference here is hamas objective is ex
Rich, just stop commenting on the ICJ ruling until you read it.
Your comments are just so out of touch.

The ICJ issued provisional measures towards Israel only, not Hamas.
Do you respect the rulings of the ICJ? this is what you are asking for 3 months ago....
And ICJ can only come up with...."no ceasefire...make sure to prevent genocide" and Hamas should release hostages unconditionally...even a 5 year old can understand it...

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
Simply put everyone is accusing their sworn enemies of genocide depending on which side you are on, the only difference here is hamas objective is ex


Do you respect the rulings of the ICJ? this is what you are asking for 3 months ago....
And ICJ can only come up with...."no ceasefire...make sure to prevent genocide" and Hamas should release hostages unconditionally...even a 5 year old can understand it...

The ICJ ruled that Israel must prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza, charge those who are inciting genocide and allow all aid through.
They have done none of those and will go on trial for genocide.

Not Hamas.
Israel will go on trial for genocide.

zionism = genocide.
 

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,125
1,941
113
kingston
Rich, just stop commenting on the ICJ ruling until you read it.
Your comments are just so out of touch.

The ICJ issued provisional measures towards Israel only, not Hamas.
The order to Hamas is in paragraph 85.
For anyone who would like to review it here is the last part of the ICG court order, containing the meat of the order, I left out all the legal preamble etc.
This was the order dated Jan 26,2024

VI. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED
75. The Court concludes on the basis of the above considerations that the conditions required by its Statute for it to indicate provisional measures are met. It is therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the Court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible (see paragraph 54 above).
76. The Court recalls that it has the power, under its Statute, when a request for provisional measures has been made, to indicate measures that are, in whole or in part, other than those requested. Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court specifically refers to this power of the Court. The Court has already exercised this power on several occasions in the past (see, for example, Application of - 23 - the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 28, para. 77).
77. In the present case, having considered the terms of the provisional measures requested by South Africa and the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the measures to be indicated need not be identical to those requested.
78. The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, 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 (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above). The Court further considers that Israel must ensure with immediate effect that its military forces do not commit any of the above-described acts.
79. The Court is also of the view that Israel must take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
80. The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
81. Israel must also take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Genocide Convention against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
82. Regarding the provisional measure requested by South Africa that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to its Order, the Court recalls that it has the power, reflected in Article 78 of the Rules of Court, to request the parties to provide information on any matter connected with the implementation of any provisional measures it has indicated. In view of the specific provisional measures it has decided to indicate, the Court considers that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month, as from the date of this Order. The report so provided shall then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon. * * * - 24 -
83. The Court recalls that its Orders on provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute have binding effect and thus create international legal obligations for any party to whom the provisional measures are addressed (Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (I), p. 230, para. 84). * * *
84. The Court reaffirms that the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or to the merits themselves. It leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of the Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel to submit arguments in respect of those questions. * * *
85. The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release. * * *

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: - 25 - (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 (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, 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: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke; AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
(3) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip; IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke; AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde;
(4) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip; IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke; AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; - 26 -
(5) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip; IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke; AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
(6) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order. IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke; AGAINST: Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak.
 
Last edited:

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,855
5,645
113
The ICJ ruled that Israel must prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza, charge those who are inciting genocide and allow all aid through.
They have done none of those and will go on trial for genocide.

Not Hamas.
Israel will go on trial for genocide.

zionism = genocide.
civilians....they are terrorists...they don't recognize ICJ rulings....you don't recognize ICJ rulings...why am i not surprised?
 

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,125
1,941
113
kingston
The ICJ ruled that Israel must prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza, charge those who are inciting genocide and allow all aid through.
They have done none of those and will go on trial for genocide.

Not Hamas.
Israel will go on trial for genocide.

zionism = genocide.
Your paraphrase is close.
The ICJ wording is that the State of Israel "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"
As well as "The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip
You are correct in that they are ordered to allow humanitarian aid in, not all aid.
" The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip"
You posted"They have done none of those and will go on trial for genocide."
Not quite, review the order, namely paragraph 86. subsection (6), they have one month to comply.
Today is February 7,2024, the order was issued January 24,2024.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
Your paraphrase is close.
The ICJ wording is that the State of Israel "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"
As well as "The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip
You are correct in that they are ordered to allow humanitarian aid in, not all aid.
" The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip"
You posted"They have done none of those and will go on trial for genocide."
Not quite, review the order, namely paragraph 86. subsection (6), they have one month to comply.
Today is February 7,2024, the order was issued January 24,2024.
My paraphrase is quite fair, I'd argue.

You are looking at the conclusions, as valcazar did earlier, but not the provisional measures.
The conclusions are what they decided based on the case submitted by South Africa.
The provisional measures are the orders based on that conclusion, the legally obligated orders they consider 'urgent' to which the parties must abide.

The very first of those is the one I paraphrase as saying Israel must prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza. Point 86 a)
 

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,125
1,941
113
kingston
And what did they do? They didn't say Israel committed genocide...on the other hand d, they confirmed hamas took hostages and stated hamas should release them without any condition....you dismiss the statement....sounds like you don't care what the ICJ rulings ... LOL
You are correct, the court stated "that at least some of the rights asserted by South Africa under the Genocide Convention are plausible."
They said it was plausible that Israel commited genocide but there was no indication by the definition of the law that they were indeed guilty of it, hence the order to make every effort to comply from this point forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richaceg

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,125
1,941
113
kingston
My paraphrase is quite fair, I'd argue.

You are looking at the conclusions, as valcazar did earlier, but not the provisional measures.
The conclusions are what they decided based on the case submitted by South Africa.
The provisional measures are the orders based on that conclusion, the legally obligated orders they consider 'urgent' to which the parties must abide.

The very first of those is the one I paraphrase as saying Israel must prevent killing Palestinians in Gaza. Point 86 a)
You say close, I said fair.
They are basically the same thing, are they not.
I was posting the accurate version so there would be no misinterpretations.
Just a side note, have you read each of the judges individual and dissenting declarations yet?
If so, what did you think of judge Noltes declaration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richaceg

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,855
5,645
113
You say close, I said fair.
They are basically the same thing, are they not.
I was posting the accurate version so there would be no misinterpretations.
Just a side note, have you read each of the judges individual and dissenting declarations yet?
If so, what did you think of judge Noltes declaration.
he gloss over every declaration...he will push his own interpretation and deem it as the right one...the reason ICJ can't flat out state "Israel commited genocide" is because there is no evidence that Israel are shooting and bombing Gazans to obliviion. There are enough evidence that Israel opened safe passage for evacuees, there are evidence supplies are going through (with a few being intercepted by Hamas), there is enough evidence that Hamas uses civilian structures to fire rockets from targeting Israel. There is enough evidence that Hamas indeed built tunnels under hospitals and schools and also use residential buildings, enough evidence Hamas turn Gaza into a warzone basically... Enough evidence that Hamas admittedly is still holding hostages and have intentions on repeating Oct 7....there won't be peace in Gaza while Hamas holds it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
You say close, I said fair.
They are basically the same thing, are they not.
I was posting the accurate version so there would be no misinterpretations.
Just a side note, have you read each of the judges individual and dissenting declarations yet?
If so, what did you think of judge Noltes declaration.
I hadn't read the declarations but checked out Nolte's declaration. He appears unconvinced but still supportive of calling for Israel to prevent killing Palestinians. He takes a cautious approach, which you would hope everyone including politicians would take, that he's unconvinced but the allegations are serious enough to warrant issuing the provisional measures and that South Africa's case is plausible. That the violence should be shut down in case its genocide. Imagine if Biden and Trudeau took that tone, which you think would be the safest politically.

15 judges but only 4 declarations (plus Israel), Uganada who was embarrassed by theirs, Nolte of Germany who is unconvinced and Barak of Israel who of course goes straight into tales of the holocaust. Plus Xue who says this is exactly what the ICJ is for.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
he gloss over every declaration...he will push his own interpretation and deem it as the right one...the reason ICJ can't flat out state "Israel commited genocide" is because there is no evidence that Israel are shooting and bombing Gazans to obliviion. There are enough evidence that Israel opened safe passage for evacuees, there are evidence supplies are going through (with a few being intercepted by Hamas), there is enough evidence that Hamas uses civilian structures to fire rockets from targeting Israel. There is enough evidence that Hamas indeed built tunnels under hospitals and schools and also use residential buildings, enough evidence Hamas turn Gaza into a warzone basically... Enough evidence that Hamas admittedly is still holding hostages and have intentions on repeating Oct 7....there won't be peace in Gaza while Hamas holds it.
Rich, you're just farting upwind again.
Read the UN reports, read the Amnesty reports, read the ICJ submission and the ruling.

Its not that hard to be informed on an issue.
Try it.
 

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,125
1,941
113
kingston
I hadn't read the declarations but checked out Nolte's declaration. He appears unconvinced but still supportive of calling for Israel to prevent killing Palestinians. He takes a cautious approach, which you would hope everyone including politicians would take, that he's unconvinced but the allegations are serious enough to warrant issuing the provisional measures and that South Africa's case is plausible. That the violence should be shut down in case its genocide. Imagine if Biden and Trudeau took that tone, which you think would be the safest politically.

15 judges but only 4 declarations (plus Israel), Uganada who was embarrassed by theirs, Nolte of Germany who is unconvinced and Barak of Israel who of course goes straight into tales of the holocaust. Plus Xue who says this is exactly what the ICJ is for.
I mentioned it because it seems to me he hasn't made up his mind yet as you mentioned and to note , the court has not issued its final decision or ruling yet, this was an order because the court deemed the current conflict was imposing"a risk of irreperable prejudice and urgency".
Once this was determined the court stated " The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, it has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial proceedings or when the alleged disregard of such rights may entail irreparable consequences. However, this power will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed before the Court gives its final decision."
So in effect since there was a plausible arguement made they issued the order to curtail any alleged repeat offenses before they viewed more evidence and testimony ahead of makig their final verdict..
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
No ruling yet, just the provisional measures.
Well, there was a ruling on whether SA's case was 'plausible' and what, if any, provisional measures should be implemented.
But there wasn't a ruling on the charges of genocide.

I could have been clearer, but this is the internet!!!
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
I mentioned it because it seems to me he hasn't made up his mind yet as you mentioned and to note , the court has not issued its final decision or ruling yet, this was an order because the court deemed the current conflict was imposing"a risk of irreperable prejudice and urgency".
Once this was determined the court stated " The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, it has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial proceedings or when the alleged disregard of such rights may entail irreparable consequences. However, this power will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed before the Court gives its final decision."
So in effect since there was a plausible arguement made they issued the order to curtail any alleged repeat offenses before they viewed more evidence and testimony ahead of makig their final verdict..
Agreed.
Of the 15 judges Israel is a given (but not sure they count), so is the Ugandan judge. Notle could go either way but would take some convincing.

But Israels actions since the ruling on the provisional measures has been pretty clearly against the orders.
Then there are statements like this.

 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,855
5,645
113
Well, there was a ruling on whether SA's case was 'plausible' and what, if any, provisional measures should be implemented.
But there wasn't a ruling on the charges of genocide.

I could have been clearer, but this is the internet!!!
Meanwhile, did you recognize #85 yet? The release of hostages unconditionally? You're quick to look two steps ahead of the ICJ ruling, but never acknowledged something that already happened...if I'm farting words...you have a serious diarrhea going on in your mouth....
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
Meanwhile, did you recognize #85 yet? The release of hostages unconditionally? You're quick to look two steps ahead of the ICJ ruling, but never acknowledged something that already happened...if I'm farting words...you have a serious diarrhea going on in your mouth....
You still don't know how the court works, rich.
You didn't read the ruling and don't understand the difference from them 'calling' for something to happen vs voting it down as a provisional measure.

If you were smarter, you'd be embarrassed about how little you know, but you don't even know enough for that.
Dunning-Kruger.
 

whynot888

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2007
3,564
1,470
113
You still don't know how the court works, rich.
You didn't read the ruling and don't understand the difference from them 'calling' for something to happen vs voting it down as a provisional measure.

If you were smarter, you'd be embarrassed about how little you know, but you don't even know enough for that.
Dunning-Kruger.
If you were smarter, you would of agreed for a surrender instead of a ceasefire which lead to thousands more killed.
Stay away from gambling, your awful at it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: richaceg
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts