112 ms·

ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, stops short of ordering ceasefire

• smoothjazz 3y ago
  Glad to see Israel face some responsibility for its horrific acts against civilians. > The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them Sounds like a ceasefire to me. How else would they do this? Definitely not with any of the military tactics Israel is currently using.
  • bitshiftfaced 3y ago
    I believe the court reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself. Presumably, the "all it can to prevent" wording is meant to work around things we expect a nation must do, such as defending itself from attack.
    • smoothjazz 3y ago
      It explicitly says they must stop killing Palestinians. None of their current military tactics satisfy this demand.
      • bitshiftfaced 3y ago
        The court referenced article II of the Genocide Convention here, which includes "Killing members of the group." Any country that commits genocide in the way outlined by the convention would be in violation, not just Israel.
        • smoothjazz 3y ago
          [flagged]
          • Timber-6539 3y ago
            [flagged]
            • WhackyIdeas 3y ago
              So far they’ve wiped out 1% of their population. The only reason it’s not 50% (imo) is that there’s hostages still there. If you are a Palestinian over there, don’t go waving a white flag or you just become a target practise. Sources: https://www.itn.co.uk/news/palestinian-man-carrying-white-flag-shot-dead-gaza https://www.itn.co.uk/news/palestinian-man-carrying-white-fl... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-hostages-killed-mistakenly-gaza-were-holding-white-flag-official-says-2023-12-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-hostages-k...
            • mrkeen 3y ago
              > From today's ruling, Israel would continue the genocide of Palestinians at its own peril. What peril will Israel face? More condemnation of Hamas by western leaders?
              • Timber-6539 3y ago
                Increased isolation from the rest of the normal world, more especially from its bosom buddy Uncle Sam.
                • mrkeen 3y ago
                  New update: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68104203 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68104203 > The UK, Australia, Italy and Canada have become the latest countries to pause funding for the UN agency for Palestinians, UNRWA. Western countries stop sending relief to Palestinians in Gaza... > This comes after the agency announced the sacking of several of its staff over allegations of involvement in the 7 October Hamas attacks. > UNRWA says it has ordered an investigation into information supplied by Israel. ... because Israel alleged that it was the relief workers who were the terrorists.
      • johnnyworker 3y ago
        This goes beyond military tactics: > Leading propaganda machine and former Member of Knesset Einat Wilf suggests that the Israeli government should allow aid into Gaza officially, but unofficially let "protesters" to block all aid from entering the Strip. I think that's actually kinda what happened today. -- https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1750216471152635915 https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/175021647115263591... > The Gaon Rabbi Dov Lior Shalita in a halachic ruling: Citizens must prevent the entry of Hamas trucks even on Shabbat, because equipping and supplying the enemy is a war act that must be stopped from the point of view of human control. -- https://twitter.com/Torat_IDF/status/1750600997745959279 https://twitter.com/Torat_IDF/status/1750600997745959279 Probably a terrible translation but the point is clear, incitement and impunity, and the results are predictable. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/protesters-prevent-51-aid-trucks-from-entering-gaza-saying-its-insane-to-aid-the-enemy/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/protesters-prev... https://www.jewishpress.com/news/eye-on-palestine/gaza/protesters-succeed-in-blocking-entry-of-all-the-humanitarian-aid-trucks-into-gaza/2024/01/25/ https://www.jewishpress.com/news/eye-on-palestine/gaza/prote... Yesterday, 0 trucks could enter Gaza, the day before that 9 out of 60, don't know about today. Note that under the convention against genocide, Israel is required to prosecute genocidal speech, much less such genocidal acts (apart from not committing them of course). Instead, as Yoav Gallant just posted this on Twitter: > The State of Israel does not need need to be lectured on morality in order to distinguish between terrorists and the civilian population in Gaza. The ICJ went above and beyond, when it granted South Africa's antisemitic request to discuss the claim of genocide in Gaza. ... which is as good a summary as any for what you find at every corner with this: not just the unwillingness to learn, but the inability to even comprehend any of this. When Gideon Levy talks about the incredible depth of Israeli indoctrination, he isn't kidding, and he's not exaggerating.
        • kevingadd 3y ago
          "brainwashing" is a term that's going to unavoidably turn this conversation in a bad direction, it might be best not to use it here. There are less inflammatory ways to describe what's happening in that tweet.
          • 3y ago
  • botverse 3y ago
    The technicality I see here is that the ICJ can call a ceasefire in an armed conflict, this would carry the implicit message that the civilian casualties are collateral damage. Instead they are asking to stop the genocidal acts. In a genocide the civilians are the target. It’s bad for the Palestinians in the short term, and bad for Israel in the long
    • jdietrich 3y ago
      >Instead they are asking to stop the genocidal acts. No, they have ordered Israel not to commit genocidal acts. The court has made no ruling on whether Israel has or has not committed genocidal acts.
  • shmatt 3y ago
    Except SA specifically asked the court to require a ceasefire, which would have immediate consequences via security council vote and no more munitions landing in Israel. And the judges voted it down This isn't a read between the lines situation, because SA's request was specifically for the court to temporarily rule for a full immediate ceasefire until the larger case could be heard What is interesting here is that by mis-reading the verdict like yourself, and Israel assuming the worst, both sides immediately came out saying today was a huge win. So at least we have that, everyone (but the Palestinians, who aren't a side in this case) is happy
    • smoothjazz 3y ago
      Honestly I'm not trying to mis-read the verdict which is why I asked the question. I think all of Israel's strategies to date include the death of Palestinians. Since that's explicitly forbidden with that ruling, how will they continue to fight? Will they just ignore the ruling or change tactics?
      • xenospn 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • smoothjazz 3y ago
          [removed]
          • bawolff 3y ago
            No, that was from south africa's request. That wasn't the wording the court used in its decision
            • smoothjazz 3y ago
              [removed]
              • 3y ago
  • exe34 3y ago
    No, if they wanted a ceasefire they would have asked for a ceasefire.
  • xenospn 3y ago
    Not at all. It simply instructed Israel to try and hit fewer people. Which is what we all expect from every army.
  • bawolff 3y ago
    > > The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them > Sounds like a ceasefire to me. How else would they do this? Definitely not with any of the military tactics Israel is currently using. Reading the actual icj ruling it seems like it only forbid it when done with genocidial intent. The court did not forbid collateral damage. The specific wording included the line "...take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II..." Earlier in paragraph 78 they said "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)." So basically it is only forbidden if the intent is specificly to kill Palestinians and not if it is collateral damage to some other military objective. I don't think this order will affect anything israel is doing.
    • SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
      The ruling is so politically ambiguous, so israel will probably be digesting it for awhile. Perhaps lowering the military activities.
      • bawolff 3y ago
        I don't know, that part seemed really clear. I think the ambigious part would more be the order about aid (how much aid is sufficient?)
        • SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
          Because this ruling is clearly about reading between lines. It feels like it is simply directly chanelling US will.
      • delecti 3y ago
        That seems optimistic. It's not like they haven't already been made aware of their own activities by this point.
      • munk-a 3y ago
  • BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    When the UN told the US not to go to war with Irak, they just ignored it. Those bodies have zero power and countries that want to massacre will kill no matter what.
    • gambiting 3y ago
      Quite the contrary - they have all the power, they are just choosing not to use it in this case. If the court ordered a ceasefire all weapon shipments to Israel would have to stop the same day.
      • ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
        Why? Whose the enforcer? Other countries have ignored the ICJ before.
      • sebzim4500 3y ago
        What does "have to" mean in this context? If the US were to sell another batch of weapons would other countries try to shoot the plane out of the air? Would they try to unilaterally sanction 30% of the world economy?
      • smt88 3y ago
        The US absolutely would not stop shipping arms to Israel or anyone else because of an international body's ruling. Israel has stockpiles of arms anyway. The war wouldn't stop just because the arms trade stopped.
    • aa_is_op 3y ago
      [flagged]
  • inglor_cz 3y ago
    International law regulates war, but does not entirely prohibit it (that would be futile; wars of aggression are specifically prohibited by Briand-Kellogg pact, but nowadays even aggressors try to dress the situation as justified defense and often get away with it; few wars since 1945 were tried by a competent tribunal and judged unlawful). It isn't unlawful per se to cause civilian casualties during military operations; any demand that the warring parties limit themselves to killing combatants only would be unrealistic, especially in urban settings. It is unlawful to target civilians intentionally or to cause wanton damage to civilian infrastructure, though.
  • noamelf 3y ago
    Isn't this collateral damage of waging war with a terrorist organisation embedded in civilian population? I don't this this counts for genocide, as sad as the results are...
• tycho-newman 3y ago
  Under the Rome Statute that set up the international criminal court, apartheid is defined as a crime where: >inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them". Netanyahu's approach to the Palestinians likely fits into this definition.
  • Qem 3y ago
    > Netanyahu's approach to the Palestinians likely fits into this definition. Indeed that understanding is corroborated by several human rights organizations, like HRW and Amnesty international: https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2022/02/qa-israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-cruel-system-of-domination-and-crime-against-humanity/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2022/02/qa-israel...
  • drc500free 3y ago
    It's worth noting that system does not apply to 2 million Israeli Arabs (nearly all of whom self-identify as "Palestinian" from an ethnic/national perspective) of the exact same race as the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The overt driver of the system - and the one that is agreed to across the whole Jewish-Israeli population - is the security issue of a Palestinian population that has held since 1948 that they are still at war with Israel, will never accept a Jewish state in the region, and will one day drive the Jews into the sea. This belief is propped up by constant propaganda from other Arab states and UNRWA (which has defined itself to exist because of a Right of Return that applies to 750k Palestinians and their descendants in perpetuity, but doesn't apply to the 14 millions Indians & Pakistanis, 12 million Germans, or 2-3 million Poles & Ukrainians who were also displaced by ethnic partitions established in 1947-1948). Israel shows every day that they are willing and able to live closely with the Palestinians who accept their right to exist and aren't trying to murder their families, without using apartheid-like systems of control. Israeli Arabs certainly face suspicion and unofficial day-to-day discrimination, but if you asked Israelis how they would feel about an equal two-state system where West Bank and Gaza were a sovereign nation populated by Palestinians who were like the Israeli Arabs, they would largely be on board. There would be friction for a while, but it would be tolerable for both states to survive and thrive without the security apparatus that needs to be in place right now. There is no doubt that Netanyahu's current governing coalition is made up of racists and religious extremists who would NOT be okay with that. Many of those secretaries want to use security issues as a pretext to fully take over "greater Israel," and use the border wall as much to keep their actions there hidden from the Israeli public as they use it to keep Hamas and IJ terror attacks to a minimum. But the PA - for all its collaboration and security partnership with the IDF - still pays bounties to the families of suicide bombers. And the reason more moderate Palestinian leaders have never been able to really negotiate a settlement is that they would be immediately overthrown by a populace who never accepted 1948 as the end of a decades-long attempt to throw the Jews out of Palestine. This has not been adjudicated in court, but I think it's difficult to claim that the current system is primarily an ethnic or racial one when it doesn't apply to the millions of Palestinians who are accepting of their neighbors. Even if it is often abused by racists.
• voisin 3y ago
  Perhaps I am unlearned in this area but I am unclear why the Jewish state, after its people experienced the atrocities of World War II, would act in this manner toward the Palestinians. Can anyone shed light on this? I understand completely the need to rid the world of Hamas terrorists, but in the process they have shown a reckless disregard (to put it mildly) for Palestinian people and their wellbeing.
  • smoothjazz 3y ago
    It's not about religion, it's about occupation. Zionists got permission to occupy the land from the British with The Balfour Declaration then started the invasion in full in 1948 with Nakba. When you occupy someone's land, there can never be peace until they get their land back or are fully exterminated or controlled militarily. This is why colonization most often leads to genocide or permanent apartheid.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • voisin 3y ago
      I have read a bit about this and I understand the explanation but I still don’t understand how a group of people subject to genocide can turn around and a few generations later be behaving in many (obviously not all) of the same ways toward another group. I would think that if anything the Israeli people would have some empathy and try to find a two state solution that exists in peace.
      • Qem 3y ago
        Reminds the cases of child abuse that run in families, with former child victims becoming perpetrators against their own children[1]. But on on a whole society level. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/cycle-of-child-sexual-abuse-links-between-being-a-victim-and-becoming-a-perpetrator/A98434C25DB8619FB8F1E8654B651A88 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...
      • 3y ago
• Mandain62 3y ago
  I really hoped that a submission on ICJ ruling will pass the aggressive flagging. At least hoped that dang will keep his promise about allowing a submission about the case. This one could be it. I understand that once allowed there will be trove of hard liners will make it hell to moderate. But being difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss a potential genocide in a making in front of our eyes.
  • cassepipe 3y ago
    EDIT: The title has been changed since and the discussion has been unflagged The problem is that this is such a partisan issue than partisanship can be perceived in the smallest of details. As someone who was staunchly pro-palestinian but as of recently came to have a more informed and I hope a more nuanced view of the whole situation, I can't help to see the title as potentially misleading : Is the ICJ saying to prevent the Genocide (i.e recognizes that a genocide is happening) or to prevent a potential genocide (that is it believes the situation could escalate towards a genocide) ? From what I have read this is the second option, so I believe the title could be misleading. The more a topic has a loaded emotional and symbolic value, the more careful the wording must be. Also I remember how annoying it was that people did not share my indignation and how I perceived such carefulness as a form of voluntary blindness.
    • smoothjazz 3y ago
      Isn't this the kind of discussion we should be having though? Why flag it?
      • cassepipe 3y ago
        I definitely think this is a discussion we should have and I am actually pleasantly surprised by the kind of comments I have read so far in that they are not unhinged even though I may disagree with some of them. I have not flagged it personally but I understand why someone would. I was just responding on "Couldn't this be the one discussion ?" and I think it's not, for the reasons above.
      • 3y ago
• 6R1M0R4CL3 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    Since you've been breaking the site guidelines repeatedly and egregiously and have ignored our request to stop, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
• ajb 3y ago
  The current title "ICJ genocide case: World court demands Israel limit deaths " isn't very accurate. I'd suggest reverting to the original "Top UN court orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza but stops short of ordering cease-fire"
  • dang 3y ago
    It's the HTML doc title of the article, which is always an option for "original title" in the guidelines' sense of that term (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22html%20doc%20title%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). What's inaccurate about it? (Btw - thank you for posting the links in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146163. We need those.)
    • ajb 3y ago
      Huh, firefox no longer displays that! I didn't realize that before. Well, there is already discussion of the meaning of Measure 1) "take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular" part a) "killing members of the group", at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39143094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39143094, so perhaps the confusion can be worked out there. I don't think it's as simple as "limit deaths" but perhaps I'm wrong, not being a lawyer.
    • ars 3y ago
      Isn't there a rule about modifying inflamatory titles? The article title "Top UN court orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza but stops short of ordering cease-fire" is less inflamatory, and will help prevent comments from going sideways. Or you can switch to https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-braces-world-court-ruling-focuses-attack-south-gaza-2024-01-26/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-braces-worl... if you want the title to match the HTML title.
      • dang 3y ago
        I don't see how it's inflammatory. It seems strictly neutral to me, with the possible exception of the word 'demands'.
• dang 3y ago
  All: if you're going to post in this thread, please make sure you're up on the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and that your comment is strictly within them. That especially means two things here: being kind, and not using the thread to do battle. If you're not able to stick to that, that's fine, but in that case please don't post. What does be kind mean in a context like this? Many things, but here's one in my view: it means finding a place in your heart for the humanity of the other—whoever the other happens to be for you. That isn't easy but it's the spirit we want here. If you can't find it in yourself, that's understandable, but on this topic, please only post if you can.
• shmerl 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • kevingadd 3y ago
    Historical comparisons aren't relevant when evaluating whether conduct today is acceptable, especially when we're talking about the deaths of innocents. Every day is an opportunity to be better than our ancestors.
    • shmerl 3y ago
      Looks very relevant to compare. Or in more practical terms, it's worth comparing to something as a reference that's similar in complexity of urban warfare but was handled better.
  • giraffe_lady 3y ago
    "Better" is hard to judge, but mosul was about ten months and resulted in 10k civilian deaths. This one is already several times that count in a much shorter time span.
    • shmerl 3y ago
      Iraqi army also lost almost half of their anti-terrorist Golden division in that battle, so that's possibly related.
  • blast 3y ago
    The issue in this case is (possible) genocide, which is a different question.
  • bdcravens 3y ago
    Peace is usually a product of avoiding "whataboutism". Humans of all shades and beliefs and origins have proven time and time again how barbaric we can be. True "justice" can probably only happen with the extinction of our species; to avoid that, someone has to say "enough" even if there are those who believe it isn't.
  • 3y ago
• golf_mike 3y ago
  How is this hackernews?
  • dang 3y ago
    HN's approach to stories with political overlap has been stable for many years*. I've written about it many times: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=political%20overlap%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you read some of those past explanations and still have a question about our general approach, let me know what it is. As for this particular story, I turned off the flags on it because it clearly counts as SNI (significant new information - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22significant%20new%20information%22%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). * as has the question "how is this hackernews", of course: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869
    • golf_mike 3y ago
      Thanks, I guess Hackernews generally is my 'safe haven' from politics. Really not intending to bite or insult, just a lot happier reading about Dijkstra being a pedantic nano-Dijkstrahole or someone dumping a GBA rom through audio. The stuff from OP I read everywhere else. My heart cries for the for the world and HN generally is one of my tissues. Much love anyways.
    • theferalrobot 3y ago
      Yet you banned all the posts on Oct 7?
      • eej71 3y ago
        You aren't the only one who has noticed.
  • hightrix 3y ago
    Like everything else on this site, you are welcome to ignore it if the topic does not interest you.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• ajb 3y ago
  The actual rulings can be found at https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192... and a summary is: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-pre-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192... Dissents etc can be found in the case page: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192 - in particular the opinion of Judge Aharon Barak, the Israeli ad-hoc Judge (a peculiarity of the ICJ is that each side gets to add a judge, but it doesn't have much effect since there are 17 other judges). But interestingly Judge Barak ruled against Israel in the case of two measures, enforcement against Incitement and ensuring humanitarian aid. I believe it's also available in French, for those more familiar with that language.
  • ComputerGuru 3y ago
    An important part of Barak’s involvement is the complete recognition of ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter, which it found (and Barak didn’t disagree) it had.
  • shmatt 3y ago
    Barak is no fan of the current Israeli government. And they often attacked him publicly and organized demonstrations around his home. They truly sent the best international law expert the country has to offer
    • yosefk 3y ago
      Not exactly. They sent the guy who controls the local judiciary because not doing so would be impossible due to his immense political power. The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself and having given itself the power to cancel any law or demand any changes to laws/policy on any arbitrary basis; since this state of affairs is backed up by a sufficient number of powerful institutions, it is effectively impossible to challenge. Barak ruling to resupply the enemy (it is widely documented that "humanitarian aid" goes first and foremost to Hamas) in an international court is entirely consistent with his lifelong tendency to gradually reduce Israeli independence and voters' impact on policy and to increase Israeli compliance to the policy of outside parties, first and foremost the US. (Resupplying the enemy was required by the US from the start. It is interesting to see other examples where civilians are prevented by the international community to leave the area of hostilities and instead they are supposed to be provided with resources in this area where the monopoly on the use of force belongs to one of the sides in the conflict.) While the exact requirements placed on Israel by larger powers are somewhat unique, having highly influential people in the country effectively work in the interest of larger powers is a common condition for smaller powers. In this Barak is similar to many other high-profile people and organizations in many other countries enjoying limited sovereignty at best.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• layer8 3y ago
  Here is the actual court order: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192... The measures to be taken are specified in paragraphs 78–82 on page 23.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• abdulhaq 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • eastbound 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • charred_patina 3y ago
    A common sentiment I have heard in the US is that "TikTok causes antisemitism". What I believe is actually happening is that TikTok debunks a lot of Hasbara talking points about the Israeli occupation of palestine (because people can see the violence with their own eyes), but then people are not educated further about the nuances of Zionism and Judaism, the different political movements within Israel like Gush Emunim and how they are not related to Judaism at large. Because Israel has so successfully conflated Zionism (a political movement) with Judaism (a religious one), it increases the possibility that when westerners stop supporting Israel they can adopt antisemitic viewpoints.
    • robertoandred 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • charred_patina 3y ago
        There is disinformation on TikTok. There are white supremacists and antisemites that take every Israeli conflict as an opportunity to spread their hate. This is true. What is also true is that you can clearly see Israel conducting a genocide live, while every news outlet in the west denies it or justifies it. I am not talking about fake news, I am talking about citizen journalists, footage of children who have been pulled out of rubble. Footage of leaflets dropped on a column of refugees. The civilian death tolls that the US confirms themselves. The harder Israel denies their atrocities, the stronger the backlash becomes when people see the truth with their own eyes. Israel's far right and Netanyahu bear a huge amount of blame for the rise of antisemitism, because they point to these atrocities and say "this is what Jewish people globally stand for". https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/bisan-plestia-motaz-gaza-through-my-instagram-feed.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/bisan-plestia-motaz-...
• throwaway260124 3y ago
  A great article from an international law prof explaining the finding can be found here: https://www.ejiltalk.org/icj-indicates-provisional-measures-in-south-africa-v-israel/ https://www.ejiltalk.org/icj-indicates-provisional-measures-... The blog has articles on the topic from both sides from numerous lawyers
  • lostdog 3y ago
    Finally, this is the first article I've seen that really explains the ruling.
  • SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    Thanks, that was extremely helpful in understanding not just the ruling, but the remit of the court.
  • ignoramous 3y ago
    Ditto for JustSecurity: https://www.justsecurity.org/91457/top-experts-views-of-intl-court-of-justice-ruling-on-israel-gaza-operations-south-africa-v-israel-genocide-convention-case/ https://www.justsecurity.org/91457/top-experts-views-of-intl... / https://archive.is/l4Du7 https://archive.is/l4Du7
• objektif 3y ago
  Please allow this. I love what pg is saying regarding this topic on X. He is again on the right side.
• TheCapeGreek 3y ago
  I usually refrain from making much political commentary. I will say this: SA is a deeply troubled country, but for once I think the ruling government has actually done a good thing by pursuing this.
  • adwn 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • pydry 3y ago
      There isnt a genocide going on in Ukraine. Both sides have made the accusation but there's nothing meeting the legal threshold like there is in Gaza.
      • ilikehurdles 3y ago
        Yeah, unlike in Ukraine, Gaza’s hospitals are firing back.
        • pydry 3y ago
          They are but apparently it's ok because "what choice do they have"? https://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-ukraine-report-wrong/ https://www.politico.eu/article/amnesty-ukraine-report-wrong... >The report on Ukraine doesn’t even address what the alternative fate of the country’s civilians might have been had their military stood aside
    • hmcq6 3y ago
      When has SA ever been quiet about apartheid?
    • thiagoharry 3y ago
      Well, we could conclude with this logic that all countries are politically motivated. After all, the countries that condemned the Russia's invasion of Ukraine were also the countries that abstained from supporting the South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that there is a much bigger number of civilians deaths in Gaza than Ukraine. In one month the number of deaths surpassed civilian casualties in Ukraine war. There is a more serious problem there than in Ukraine.
• aaomidi 3y ago
  I do think that their future Feb ruling is going to call for a ceasefire. If they called for one now, Israel & especially the US were just going to ignore it and reduce the power of the court. Israel has created a beast that I don't think they can control themselves. I do think that the court is going to get more legitimacy after they explicitly tell Israel to __chill__, for Israel not to chill, and then get the ceasefire ruling against them & potentially an intensification of the genocide case. Meanwhile, unfortunately, real people are suffering so these political games can be played. I am so deeply disappointed in the Biden administration here. They're throwing away a lot of the good work they've done, and are actively getting Trump elected. People, naturally, do not want to participate in an election that is giving them a choice between ${person_currently_helping_a_genocide} and ${person_that_will_intensify_genocide}. You're just going to get voter apathy, and the consequences from that.
  • nerdponx 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • mardifoufs 3y ago
      Lol yeah George w bush at least just focused on killing 1m people in the middle east instead of being yucky!
  • StriverGuy 3y ago
    Does Hamas have to adhere to an ICJ ordered ceasefire?
    • threeseed 3y ago
      No. Because they are a terrorist organisation. Israel is expected to because they are not.
      • mantas 3y ago
        Hamas is democratically elected government in Gaza.
• mjevans 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • nickff 3y ago
    Huh? How would you accomplish this? Why wouldn’t the terrorists hide amongst the non-terrorists? Where would you take the non-terrorists? What about people who are terrorist-supporting non-terrorists, aren’t they a source of potential issues?
  • speg 3y ago
    Said terrorists will just melt into the general population and walk out with them, and then return with them and repeat the next cycle.
    • mjevans 3y ago
      What do you propose to stop that?
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • dekken_ 3y ago
    > Clearly a war began when one or more terrorist groups physically based in Gaza invaded Israel That was but a skirmish, they've been "at war" since the 1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gaza#Israeli_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gaza#Israeli_contro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
  • cthaeh 3y ago
• Animats 3y ago
  There is another player. China is interested in resolving the Gaza conflict.[1] China's position is that, since the existing world order, the International Court of Justice and the United States, can't resolve this, China should become involved. Chinese container shipping lines COSCO and OOCL have suspended trade with Israel. China has already provided some aid to Gaza.[2] Gaza has a sizable coastline, and China has a large number of amphibious assault ships available. They can defend themselves against Israel air attacks. If China decides to send humanitarian relief to Gaza, China can do it, and Israel can't stop them.[3] China would look like the good guys. Which their leadership knows. [1] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/chinas-game-gaza https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/chinas-game-gaza [2] https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-10-26-23/h_11fabcfdb3ad4a7dec97fcb9f9131cdd https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-wa... [3] https://www.newsweek.com/china-amphibious-assault-ship-type-075-taiwan-south-china-sea-1854084 https://www.newsweek.com/china-amphibious-assault-ship-type-...
  • xenospn 3y ago
    This has exactly zero chances of happening. Israel would never let anyone they don’t approve of get anywhere near Gaza.
    • ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      That is definitely Israel’s intention, but suppose China did go for it. Does Israel have the stones for direct airstrike on Chinese fleet? It’s gonna get messy. It’s a big game of chicken, I am not sure who I would bet on.
      • arrosenberg 3y ago
        How is the Chinese Navy getting there? Gotta go through Gibraltar or Suez, and then there is the NATO naval base at Souda Bay. Only way their ships get close is with US consent.
  • nickff 3y ago
    Which other international conflicts has China resolved? The current Chinese state seems to be much better at fostering conflict (I.e. the ongoing Korean War) than resolving it.
• throwaway918274 3y ago
  Something tells me that Israel will just ignore them.
  • moogly 3y ago
    That strategy has indeed worked for Israel in the past, and it will work now.
  • envfriendly 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Spin this any way you like but The International Court of Justice said there is no genocide No, it didn't, that’s simply a lie. It said that the pleadings were sufficient plausible and that conditions present a sufficient risk of irreparable harm to warrant provisional measures against Israel. It didn't say that there is no genocide, and it didn't say that there is a genocide. The application for provisional measures it ruled on is analogous in the US system to a preliminary injunction, it enables the court to order measures judged necessary to prevent irreparable harm while a case is pending on the merits, and is not a ruling on the merits. The case continues on the merits, which it would not if the court were already able to determine that no genocide took place. (And it wouldn't, in that case, order provisional measures.) > and didn't demand a ceasefire or that Israel ends the war This, OTOH, is true; the ICJ did not include in its provisional measures against Israel a demand for Israel to cease all military operations.
      • envfriendly 3y ago
        > It didn't say that there is no genocide, and it didn't say that there is a genocide. It may change, but CURRENTLY, it does not think there's sufficient evidence to rule in favour of provisional measures, i.e., it does not think there is a genocide. Resorting to legalese isn't changing this fact.
        • 3y ago
• password54321 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • shepherdjerred 3y ago
    Please share your sources
    • hypeit 3y ago
      Like the parent says, these have all been widely reported on. I think we have to come into this conversation with a base level of the events that are going on before commenting.
      • shepherdjerred 3y ago
        This was a very unhelpful response to someone trying to understand another's viewpoint.
        • megous 3y ago
          It's ~20k women and children killed/missing(presumed killed) at this point. There's no shortage of any kind of attrocities against civilians to be found online. You can find anything from driving tanks over families with children, crushing them to death, and surviving children describing the ordeal, to videos of 9 year old being executed by a shot to the head in the street, to teenagers throwing fireworks and being shot and then finished off while laying on the ground. (in the west bank, even) As for shooting people holding white flags, even CNN did a feature on that. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/middleeast/hala-khreis-white-flag-shooting-gaza-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/middleeast/hala-khreis-white-... Or the story of the church lady: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/family-remembers-cherished-christian-music-teacher-84-shot-and-left-to-die-in-gaza-street-amid-israel-hamas-war/ar-AA1kbqu0 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/family-remembers-cheris... And there's an interview with the son somewhere (the person that is seen running to the woman in the end). I lost the link already, since there's a constant stream of new attrocities on Telegram, and there's no point keeping up.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• zhengiszen 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • Beefin 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • frob 3y ago
      I would argue there has been massive condemnation of Russia by much of the west. The west is lobbing missiles at Russia. It's giving missiles to Israel to lob at Gaza.
      • Beefin 3y ago
        do you have a good military strategy for neutralizing hamas?
  • akira2501 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • robertoandred 3y ago
      It’s not an apartheid nation. Over 20% of Israelis are Arab.
      • akira2501 3y ago
        Are they represented in any way in the Knesset? Are they treated the same is Jewish Israeli citizens when travelling? What about the Arabs in East Jerusalem? Are non Jewish citizens actually afforded equal protections under the Basic Laws? Does the "Law of Return" apply to non-Jewish Israelis? Economically, how are the Arabs doing compared to the Jews?
        • nsguy 3y ago
          Yes, Israeli Arabs are fairly represented in the Knesset, and in the courts, and everywhere. They carry an Israeli passport and are treated the same way and have the same travel rights. The people not treated the same are people that live in the occupied territories. The status of those territories has not been settled since 1967. I.e. the West Bank and Gaza. Israel accepts that those are occupied territories (it has not annexed them). The parties they were taken from (Jordan and Egypt) do not wish to take them back. So "Israel" proper does not discriminate against Arabs (broadly speaking) but the status of the occupied territories, that are under military rule, according to international law, is different. EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Politi...
• 1letterunixname 3y ago
  ICJ didn't reach any conclusions or positions except that IDF needs to be careful. No call for a ceasefire. I'm curious what people in Tel Aviv see in media. In America, it's wall-to-wall "police say"-like IDF clips and Bill Maher condemnation, dehumanization, and equivocating Palestine supporters with Hamas terrorists. The talking heads cheerfully greet Netanyahu.
  • albntomat0 3y ago
    > In America, it's wall-to-wall "police say"-like IDF clips and Bill Maher condemnation, dehumanization, and equivocating Palestine supporters with Hamas terrorists. The talking heads cheerfully greet Netanyahu. As someone who also consumes US news, this does not describe what I’ve seen.
    • 1letterunixname 3y ago
      Local news or networks? Which ones?
      • albntomat0 3y ago
        Written, a combination of New York Times, Washington Post, and what Google News aggregates (frequently includes Fox and a mix of websites of local news websites)
  • Beefin 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • hayst4ck 3y ago
    I have found the exact opposite. NPR, for example, spends a lot of time humanizing Gazans and showing that Israel is terrorizing them, quite literally. NPR also frequently talked about the right wing/nationalist power seizures leading up to this. Before the war, I think a good number of Americans saw Israel blowing up the Associated Press offices. It hardly matters what the excuse was. I feel like every week I've heard a story about Israel telling Gazans where to go, and then bombing that location. I'm not sure I saw any news outlet that didn't report 70% women and children casualties, which pretty much speaks for itself. Nobody I went to college with supports Israel at all. Genocide Joe is not just used by his oponents. That name didn't come out of nowhere. Many of the people who voted for him agree his genocidal support of Israel is unacceptable.
• whalesalad 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • MisterBastahrd 3y ago
    It isn't war. War is when two nation states fight. This is shooting fish in a barrel with a full on propaganda campaign attached.
    • robertoandred 3y ago
      I think 10/7 counts as a fight, don’t you?
      • MisterBastahrd 3y ago
        Maybe you should read what I wrote again. War is an official declaration between nations, not simply a "fight."
        • mantas 3y ago
          Nobody is declaring wars anymore. Technically Russia’s attack on Ukraine is still a „special operation”.
  • Sporktacular 3y ago
    All wars end when one side gives up. Attacks and land theft on West Bank Palestinians are at a record high too. This will only end with the creation of a viable Palestinian state. "This is war, there will be loss of life" is such a callous way to dismiss the disproportionality of this conflict.
    • theferalrobot 3y ago
      > when one side gives up. > disproportionality of this conflict Why is disproportionality meaningful at all? Clearly Israel is under attack. They have full right to subdue those attacks through all means necessary. I would hope every government provides the same for their people (and it is so easy to criticize Israel with all of us coming from countries that do protect our safety). Unfortunately Hamas has no regard for Palestinian lives, the best possible outcome for the Palestinians is Hamas giving up.
• throway47362467 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > Every thread in this conversation is A+ idiotic. … Reddit crowd I am not sure how this elitism is justified - when it comes to military or international law, there is no difference between asking on HN and a Joe off the street. Add in the fact that many software developers are, my, how to put this, emotionally challenged, and of course each thread will be idiotic.
    • throway47362467 3y ago
      It's not elitism, it's conservatism. The people who will signup are the same ones who upvote every "Trump got slammed by XX" threads on reddit. Once they know that another and a more genuine reddit exists, they'll starting shovel that stuff here too.
  • handoflixue 3y ago
    I had not realized submissions on 7 Oct were banned. Thank you for drawing attention to that. I threw the term "7 Oct" and "7 October" and there's pretty clearly no major threads about it, especially not in October. Even "Hamas" didn't reveal anything. I don't think it's at all helpful to say "Every" thread in this conversation is "idiotic" alongside this, though. That just gives people room to dismiss your comment
  • shilgapira 3y ago
    I don't usually reply to meta posts, but I can't help but agree with this. As much as I appreciate the work moderators do here any other day of the year, it was disappointing that there was no discussion allowed on October 7th - indeed, every thread was nuked - when 0.1% of the Jews in the world were murdered in a single day. When Russia attacked Ukraine that was very much allowed to be discussed, and rightly so.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• Sporktacular 3y ago
  There's so much wiggle room within the statement. For example 78 - Israel must... take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of... acts... in particular: ... (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. Bombing or evacuating hospitals will have that effect, but it would be extremely difficult to prove intention. So they can keep doing what they say is necessary. Many governments have issued vague calls to minimise civilian deaths etc. If Israel rejected those, it's hard to see it treating this differently.
• nicup12345689 3y ago
  Stopped short of.... exposing how powerless the ICJ actually is.
  • megous 3y ago
    All courts are powerless. Ever seen a judge enforcing anything? Enforcement organ here is Security Council and in particular individual countries.
• artur_makly 3y ago
  https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/south-africa-will-win-order-in-icj-case-with-very-significant-consequences-for-israel-veteran-lawyer/3104029 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/south-africa-will-win-order-...
• belter 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • dang 3y ago
    We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146010.
• throway47362467 3y ago
  [dead]
• surume 3y ago
  Hi All, I am a combat soldier and commander in the IDF currently fighting in Gaza. We are not committing any genocide. The give away for Genocide is that there are mass graves, which in Gaza there are not. Yes there is collateral damage because Hamas uses civilians as human shields, so we have no choice but to kill them too, but we do not specifically target them. We risk ourselves and our soldiers to ensure that the fewest number of non-combatants get killed. We have lost many of our own soldiers because of this. It would be much easier for us to just bomb everything from the air but we dont, because it's less precise than going in on foot. Personally, as a commander, I would like to say that I have no ill feelings towards the Palestinian people, but we need to get as many of the hostages back as possible, and we cannot allow Hamas to continue ruling Gaza and attacking our civilians as they did on October 7th. We will continue the fight with them until our military objectives are met, and we will also engage Hizbollah on the northern border for exactly the same reasons (Hamas actually stole their plan and used it on October 7th - Hezbollah had planned to do it in the north but much worse). Israel is the canary in the coal mine. What happens to us today will happen to you tomorrow, so before you give your full throated support to Hamas, let me ask you, would you want October 7th to happen to your family and friends? If Hamas aren't stopped, that same attack will happen around the world. Please support us and help rid the world of violent terrorism, and maybe one day, we can all live in peace. Shabbat Shalom!
  • oeta 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • Miner49er 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • r00fus 3y ago
    > We are not committing any genocide. The ICJ seems to disagree with you.
  • SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • 3y ago
• Asafp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • infamouscow 3y ago
    The overwhelming majority of people on Earth disagrees with what the government of Israel is doing.
    • pc86 3y ago
      What are you basing your second statement on?
    • tome 3y ago
      I think it's extremely sad that the measured and helpful comment that you are replying to was flagged. It suggests that the preponderance of HN commentors skews heavily one way on this issue (whether that skew is correct or not is another matter). To respond to your comment specifically: I'm proud to count myself in the overwhelming minority.
      • Asafp 3y ago
        I agree, I would love to get @dang answer on why my comment is flagged and hidden, while massive misinformation is allowed to stay up here. and people here wonder why Israel put resource into showing the truth to the world.
        • tome 3y ago
          It looks like it has been restored, so I am glad about that.
          • tome 3y ago
            And it's gone again ...
• trialect 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • nashashmi 3y ago
    Study of Law is in the framework of HN.
  • iddan 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    This comes up a lot, but the answer has been stable for many years. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 for more information.
• blitz_skull 3y ago
  What's the ICJ's actual ability to enforce this? "Orders" sounds like they have some sort of weight to throw around if Israel doesn't comply, but I'm not familiar with the ICJ or what possible consequences could arise if Israel simply decided it was going to do what it wanted.
  • krainboltgreene 3y ago
    None, but what this does is create a rather significant pressure, one of many. If it didn't, you wouldn't see so much defense of Israeli state action.
  • bawolff 3y ago
    In theory i think they are supposed to ask the security council to step in if the order is ignored. Which would be unlikely to do anything, so nothing. I think its likely israel will comply. The order is pretty weak and mostly stuff israel already claims to be doing. It wouldn't be worth the PR hassle to ignore it.
    • nvm0n2 3y ago
      Israel's government doesn't care about PR hassle from the usual suspect. We may notice that they've had plenty of that lately and it did not stop them at all. Even if doing what the ICJ wants is easy, there's a strong reason not to (from their perspective) - it implies the ICJ should be obeyed and legitimizes them. But why should Israel do that? It's just another leftie NGO from Netenyahu's perspective. Start following what those guys want and soon they will have to do nothing even as Hamas attacks again and again.
      • Wytwwww 3y ago
        > Hamas attacks again and again. Considering how reliant Netenyahu's political career was/is on Hamas continuing to exist it's likely that's going to happen anyway. An actual long-term solution would be a huge blow to all of the right.
        • 3y ago
• envfriendly 3y ago
  [flagged]
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• seydor 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • sebzim4500 3y ago
    Both of these numbers pale in comparison to the civilian losses of Germany in WWII, and the Allies are not generally considered to have performed a genocide. Clearly the absolute number of casualties (not even civilian casualties in this case, that is allegedly more like 15k) is not sufficient on its own to define a genocide.
    • smoothjazz 3y ago
      The raw number of people killed isn't indicative of a genocide, it's intent and actions against a specific population. Over 1.5 million (out of 2 million) Gaza residents are displaced and facing starvation. Almost all of the hospitals in Gaza have been destroyed. Many would say Israel is committing genocide and the court today said they will continue the investigation because it's plausible.
      • robertoandred 3y ago
        [flagged]
      • hrnnnnnn 3y ago
        Indeed, you don't even need to kill to commit a genocidal act, you can also prevent people from having children.
      • zmgsabst 3y ago
        That alone doesn’t amount to a genocide: - They’re displaced because there was active fighting in their homes. - Hospitals were destroyed because they were being used as military outposts. Neither of those violates the rules of war, though Hamas using hospitals as outposts is a war crime. I think it’s a tragedy the government of Gaza brought this disaster down upon them by committing war crimes against their stronger neighbor and then further war crimes using their own population as human shields. But that’s not a genocide. Gaza can surrender any time and the collateral damage isn’t out of line with modern urban conflicts. Eg, US in Iraq.
• glass_saturn 3y ago
  Respectfully, would you have made the same comment about 'finding a place in your heart for the humanity of the other' if we lived during the holocaust, where 'one side' was being maimed and killed by the other, more powerful side? Would you have made the same comment if we were talking about apartheid in South Africa? How about if we were talking about how slavery ought to be stopped prior to 1865? Should we _always_ be looking to find the humanity in the other side, or is there something fundamentally different here? Not trying to disrespect anyone here, but sometimes we need to ask ourselves tough questions.
  • jjcon 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    I'll try to respond to this in a minute but in the meantime have detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146010. Edit: I guess my basic response is that I'm skeptical of approaching these questions from that level of abstraction. None of us can say what we would have done in those horrible situations. We can only answer out of our own imagination about ourselves, which is likely to be completely unreliable. What I do think is that on this site, we can and should be working with our own responses in a way that is more than just venting them onto a perceived other. That's in keeping with what HN is supposed to be for.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • psyfi 3y ago
    > Respectfully, would you have made the same comment about 'finding a place in your heart for the humanity of the other' if we lived during the holocaust, where 'one side' was being maimed and killed by the other, more powerful side? Yes.. > Should we _always_ be looking to find the humanity in the other side, or is there something fundamentally different here? Yes..
  • nf3 3y ago
    I think you're missing the point. The battle of gaza is not fought on HN. We can only comment on the situation, and we can do this with equanimity and compassion even if we disagree. Shouldn't we all be opposed to Nazism? Shouldn't we all be against slavery? Of course. But in the present discussion, I can be opposed to the atrocities of October 7th, while being sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians, just as I can be opposed to the destruction of Gaza while having compassion for the Israelis. Being critical of either side doesn't mean I'm against them.
• theferalrobot 3y ago
  Why are many respectful yet pro-israel posts being flagged and removed, while there are vile pro-hamas posts being flagged and left here? Why was discussion not allowed on Oct 7 but is now? I know you are trying but it does not seem even handed. I'm screenshotting a whole collection of them examples if seeing them together would be helpful.
  • dang 3y ago
    (I've detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146010.) I'd need to see links to specific comments, but certainly the flags aren't working any differently than they usually do. The only difference between [flagged][dead] and just [flagged] is the number of flags relative to upvotes; in the former case it would be higher than in the latter case. Your several comments in this thread seem to be coming from a place of battling for one side against the other. I'm sure you have very good reasons for it, but it's not the intended spirit of discussion here, as I tried to explain at the top of the thread. In such cases, where people have (legitimately) strong feelings on a topic, the temptation to see the mods as biased in favor of the opposite side is almost irresistible. It happens from every perspective on every divisive topic, and this topic is one of the most divisive we've ever seen.
    • theferalrobot 3y ago
      Well for instance, why is the news about UNWRA being censored here? I can find links to posts via google but they've all been removed, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39160571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39160571 Personally I'd rather non-tech world news stay off HN completely but I'm calling it out because as someone who is up on world news I see quite a double standard unraveling here and that seems unfortunate.
      • dang 3y ago
        Users flagged that story. We didn't touch it or even see it. I've turned off the flags now. I just wrote a long explanation of how we approach the question of flags on stories like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39161344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39161344. If you read that and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd be happy to hear it. If you do read it, you'll notice that one factor is whether there has been a major thread about the topic recently. That's important here because the current enormous thread isn't even 2 days old. HN can't handle a major discussion about this topic very often. So while I've turned off the flags, I don't think another story about this topic should be on the front page yet. If it helps at all, before I saw your comment I was just responding (by email) to someone asking why https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39160743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39160743 was flagged, and I answered the same way: that is, (1) I turned off the flags, but also (2) explained why HN can't have another frontpage thread about this two days after the last one. I know a pair of cases is a small sample but I hope it can count as a sign of how we try to be even-handed. I've learned the hard way that it's simply impossible to avoid perceptions and accusations of bias on divisive topics; even the most neutral moderation is going to generate such perceptions (actually it's worse than that—it's going to generate more). I'm not claiming to be at that level but I can tell you for sure that we do work hard at being even-handed.
• zmgsabst 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • megous 3y ago
    > The ICJ disgraces itself condemning a nation not engaged in genocide on behalf of a nation that is. There's no condemnation in the text. It shows you didn't read the ICJ order.
    • zmgsabst 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Opening a genocide trial is an implicit condemnation of their behavior No? The condemnation was by South Africa, in submitting its application. The Court very deliberately did not condemn nor exonerate [1]. [1] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192...
  • dang 3y ago
    You've been breaking the site guidelines badly in this thread and your comments are very much not in the intended spirit, as I tried to explain it at the top. Please stop posting like this. (In case anyone is worried: yes, the exact same thing applies to the commenters you disagree with.) We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39148089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39148089. Edit: it turns out we've had to ask you this many times before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38504415 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38504415 (Dec 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38268054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38268054 (Nov 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36792189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36792189 (July 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34191073 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34191073 (Dec 2022) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34191063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34191063 (Dec 2022) If this keeps up, we'll end up having to ban your account. (In case anyone is worried: yes, that this would work exactly the same way even if you were arguing for the opposite position.) We're not interested in enforcing views on this or any other divisive topic; only in protecting this site for its intended purpose.
• anon291 3y ago
  At the end of the day, the ICJ does not matter because it has no military, and the only major military power in the world, the United States of America, doesn't recognize its jurisdiction at all. Next time, they should try the Supreme Court if they actually want to make a difference (not that it'd work)
  • megous 3y ago
    America recognizes ICJ. It even has a judge in it, which presides the court currently. https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/donoghue_en.pdf https://icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/donoghue_en.pdf
    • anon291 3y ago
      It has an American on it, but the United States no longer accepts its jurisdiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice > For example, the United States had previously accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but in 1984, after Nicaragua v. United States, withdrew its acceptance following the court's judgment that called on the US to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. The court ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the United States was "in breach of its obligation under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua" and ordered the United States to pay war reparations.[21]
      • megous 3y ago
        It still does. Just not unconditionally (as in https://icj-cij.org/declarations https://icj-cij.org/declarations). There are several cases pending concerning the US, and there were cases concerning US since 1984.
• jfi8 3y ago
  [dead]
• locallost 3y ago
  My views on the situation aside, the clearest I saw anyone communicate the issues from a global angle was the former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin Translated here: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1718201487132885246 https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1718201487132885246 Viewed from the angle of the West, I think the message it needs to avoid isolating itself from the world is very unusual for Western media and important. Quote: "Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers." And "This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle."
  • pgeorgi 3y ago
    All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then? Spend tons of money on iron dome to shoot down the rockets and hope that Hamas won't manage to conduct another massacre, even if "only" half the scope of October 7? This mess features not one but two parties who currently reject the concept of a cease fire.
    • hypeit 3y ago
      Israel must face the reality that is an apartheid state that exists on occupied land. There is no solution until that happens. Just like apartheid South Africa was dismantled, Israel has to face the same fate or forever be locked into warfare and oppressing Palestinians.
      • golergka 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
• jmyeet 3y ago
  It's worth noting that the ICJ like pretty much all international bodies has no enforcement power and countries will routinely ingore the rulings they don't like. Still, things like this matter. It adds to public pressure. Another thing is that how judges rule will often align with national interests rather than any facts in any case. So in a case against Israel you might expect the US to side with Israel regardless of the facts. Likewise, China might side against a genocide case because it doesn't want to set a precedent given the history with the Uyghurs. Likewise, Turkey will be aware of how any precedent may affect their treatment of Kurds, and so on. So what do you do if you're one of these countries and the facts are against you? You go through this dance of trying to bypass the facts and get your desired outcome on procedural grounds. I mention this because regular courts (eg in the US) do the exact same thing. The Supreme Court may grant standing on tenuous grounds for a case they want to rule on or deny standing on procedural grounds to avoid making a ruling when the facts are "against" them. Likewise, they may make a narrow ruling to avoid a broad precedent or seek a broad precedent if it's the desired outcome. "Standing" here means you're an affected party who is allowed to bring an action to court. There are lots of rules depending on the action to decide if you have standing. There's also historical tradition. For example, SCOTUS will tend to favor granting standing in First Amendment cases because government restraint on speech is viewed as having a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Courts are political. They have always been political. The idea that judges are impartial scholars isolated from the world is a myth. This is what I want people to understand. I'm not even agreeing with or dismissing the ICJ's conclusions here. I'm talking about the judicial process.
  • aprilthird2021 3y ago
    The US judge seemed to go with the majority here. The Israeli judge concurred on some of the charges plausibility but not all. Only one judge disagreed with the court on all charges. I don't think the judges had the kind of bias alleged by your comment (it's certainly possible they could have but their opinions don't seem to reflect that)
• thsksbd 3y ago
  The ICJ punted. The ruling is a joke, how can you rule against the defendant and yet order the defendant to monitor themselves? The ICJ knew if it found against Israel it would loose all credibility outside the West, but it also had too much political pressure from the West to rule for Israel.
  • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > ICJ punted Yes. But this isn’t the final ruling. South Africa asked for something analogous to a preliminary injunction. The ICJ declined to order a preliminary ceasefire. Instead, the case will be tried as usual.
    • thsksbd 3y ago
      Which will take years that the Palestinians do not have
      • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > take years that the Palestinians do not have Sure. I don’t think the ICJ was envisioned as an incapacitating body. Instead its existence is a deterrent. A venue for retribution and possibly even restitution.
  • dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The ICJ punted. No, it didn't. It ruled on what amounts to (in the parlance of the US legal system) a preliminary injunction, ordering one because the pleadings and supporting evidence on initial review warrant it, while the process of a trial on the merits will take longer. > The ruling is a joke, how can you rule against the defendant and yet order the defendant to monitor themselves? The only people the ICJ can order are the parties. External monitoring and enforcement is a matter for, primarily, the UN Security Council. > The ICJ knew if it found against Israel it would loose all credibility outside the West, but it also had too much political pressure from the West to rule for Israel. The process by which the ICJ might rule for or against Israel, rather than ordering provisional measures, is much longer. This is just an early part of the case.
• aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
• _9hey 3y ago
  [flagged]
• w0mbat 3y ago
  The ruling also ordered Hamas to release all hostages, and Hamas has previously claimed they would abide by any ruling of the court. I find it unlikely though that they will comply.
  • dragonwriter 3y ago
    The ruling didn't, and couldn't given the ICJ’s jurisdiction, order Hamas to do anything: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39149823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39149823 > Hamas has previously claimed they would abide by any ruling of the court No, Hamas previously claimed that they would observe a ceasefire if the court imposed one on Israel, conditioned on Israeli compliance with the same. They didn't say they would do anything related to anything other than an ceasefire order.
  • shortsunblack 3y ago
    Hamas is not a state. ICJ is a tribunal that adjudicates disputes between states. ICJ has no jurisdiction to rule in regards to Hamas. Neither can Hamas bring a case against Israel, as it has no standing, considering it is not a party to the international treaty.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • starik36 3y ago
    They probably claimed it because in their delusion they thought the court would unconditionally side with them. Unlikely that they will release the hostages just because a court said so.
  • rsoto2 3y ago
    Palestine is considered occupied territory and is not a part of the UN
• ken47 3y ago
  I wish politics articles wouldn't make it to the top page of Hacker News. There's already enough political discussion in a million other places.
  • dang 3y ago
    Yes, and we won't let HN turn into a current affairs site, but this site has always had a certain amount of political content, and that's why this particular thread is happening. For more information, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 and the links there.
    • theultdev 3y ago
      Is there a reason why Oct 7th (the massacre that started this escalation) was not discussed? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1696896000&dateRange=custom&dateStart=1696550400&page=0&prefix=false&query=&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1696896000&dateRange=custom&...
      • vcryan 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • theultdev 3y ago
          I was specifically asking about Oct 7th coverage and the coverage this event. While I don't agree with your recount of history, it's off-topic to my question to @dang In fact, the presence and tone of comments like yours vs the lacking and flagging of pro-Israel gets exactly to the root of my question.
      • dang 3y ago
        I haven't gone back to check this, but I assume users flagged the posts and moderators didn't turn off the flags. We only turn off flags when it seems like there's some basis and at least some chance for a reflective, substantive discussion. That isn't possible in the immediate aftermath of a shocking event like the atrocities of Oct 7—the reactions are necessarily going to be reflexive rather than reflective; completely understandably so—but the odds of any thoughtful conversation in that state of shock are basically zero. Not that this thread or the related ones have been anything close to what I would wish for on HN, in terms of thoughtful conversation, but unfortunately we don't have the ability to make that happen, and not discussing the topic at all seems out of the question as well, so here we are with no good position and no solution.
• erickf1 3y ago
  The UN has no power to exercise binding laws over sovereign states.
• foxhop 3y ago
  let's start by turning the water and electricity back on
  • halflife 3y ago
    Water and electricity were both resumed in oct. 15th.
    • waffleiron 3y ago
      Here is an Israel Times article from the 28th that seems to prove that to be untrue for electricity (but true for water although severely reduced). Could you source that statement? https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-concern-for-humanitarian-situation-how-much-water-and-power-does-gaza-have/amp/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-concern-for-humanitarian-...
      • halflife 3y ago
        I stand corrected, water were resumed but electricity was not.
  • xorpd 3y ago
    Let's start by returning the Israeli hostages
• mrangle 3y ago
  The primary problem was always that there are too many parties who have an interest in the existence of Hamas. Put differently, there are too many parties with an interest in using the Palestinians as pawns. Leaving aside the views of any specific Palestinian. As no serious person can dispute the ease of radicalizing destitute people without educations and with PTSD. As long as this is the case, the Palestinians, on the whole, will present as radicalized. The continued goal can't be to use them as pawns. The goal has to be to peacefully save every last remaning Palestinian life, at all costs. In spite of the interests of any of the people who use them. Accomplishing that goal, at all peaceful costs, will be distasteful to both the people who want to sacrifice the Palestinians for Islamic land interests as well as to the people who see them as, at minimum, legitimate collateral damage. But that is what will be required to take Palestinian civilians out of the middle of this endless nightmare.
  • ignoramous 3y ago
    > dispute the ease of radicalizing destitute people without educations and with PTSD Using the same broad stroke generalization and similarly de-humanizing moral compass; how do you judge the society these people celebrating child murder, arson, death, riots, mass executions, hateful incitement belong to: https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1723739389262434409 https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17237393892624344... > But that is what will be required to take Palestinian civilians out of the middle of this endless nightmare One might say, the chief among requirements is for the occupation of a people who have rejected it every step of the way to end. Everything else is a distraction.
  • rsoto2 3y ago
    The primary problem has been a brutal occupation, apartheid state, and blockade
  • mjfl 3y ago
    “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” - Benjamin Netanyahu https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-israel-prime-minister https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjam...
• AzzyHN 3y ago
  What would happen if they did order a ceasefire? Who would enforce this?
  • nojvek 3y ago
    I feel this is where the world is seeing the failure of US. When US have Ukraine weapons to defend themselves, we were the good guys. When US gives Israel the weapons to attack and airbomb Palestinians in daylight it puts US in a very bad light. US should be the ones enforcing a cease fire. Where no side gets to airbomb each other. Every life is valuable. Israelis or Palestinians. The failure of US policy is to be the gatekeeper of world peace. We have the largest army by far. We spend an obscene amount of our taxes on defense. Yet we failed to keep peace.
    • presentation 3y ago
      The US’s motivations are to maximize its power and profits, to think it is to keep the peace is naive. There are other, more economically valuable regions with conflicts in the world whose situations have higher probability of clean resolution than the Palestine conflict, so the US will focus on those instead until it is forced not to. Anyway, there is no resolution to Israel/Palestine that won’t involve the probable demise of one of the two’s futures. Bloods being spilled and it will continue to be spilled.
    • irishloop 3y ago
      Israel is a close military ally and Palestine is... not. There are no true neutral countries in the world. Everyone has allies who they treat differently than enemies. There are no good guys or bad guys. There are only countries which do good and bad things. Whether its in Palestine or Congo or China or Ukraine, the most even a superpower can do is leverage power to reduce killing and fatalities.
    • maronato 3y ago
      Giving weapons to Ukraine wasn’t about helping Ukraine; it was about opposing Russia. Israel is a strategic ally in the Middle East that also happens to have many high profile supporters in the US. There’s likely enormous pressure from within to do just about nothing and just let it play out. Peace, unfortunately, is a conveniently flexible concept employed to conceal one’s motives and justify frivolous wars.
• TacticalCoder 3y ago
  [flagged]
• teleforce 3y ago
  Those who want to know the proper history and context of the current conflict, you really owe it to yourself to read this well researched book by Prof Rashid Khalidi, The Hundred Years' War on Palestine [1]. In his latest book he even mentioned Israel - Palestinian latest major war (fifth war in chronological order) in the form of many years of blockade on the people of Gaza. The fact that this book was published several years (2017) before the event happened kind of foretelling that now we have an on-going all out war between one of mightiest army of the modern world against people without a country and no official army to its defense. [1] The Hundred Years' War on Palestine (2017): https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627798556/thehundredyearswaronpalestine https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627798556/thehundredyears...
  • runarberg 3y ago
    And a recent interview on the same author: https://www.democracynow.org/2023/12/20/this_is_a_colonial_war_historian https://www.democracynow.org/2023/12/20/this_is_a_colonial_w...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • whalesalad 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      Huh, bemusing to note this is, with a VERY wide brush, Rome v Parthia all over again.
    • teleforce 3y ago
      Imagine trying to extend and justify every land conflict way further before the Roman Empire, hence the Italian can claim back their ruling over most of England, and the Moroccan over most of Spain.
      • tim333 3y ago
• pmarreck 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • dang 3y ago
    We've had to warn you before not to post religious flamewar comments to HN (and also nationalistic and ideological flamewar comments). We end up having to ban accounts that do this repeatedly, because it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. I don't want to ban you! So pleae don't do this on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • pmarreck 3y ago
      Argh! I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to start a flamewar. And we have discussed this before, probably. (I have a 2 year old toddler. Sleep is... affected, I will just say that. And consequently, memory.) I guess I do not yet understand the framework within which I can discuss this rationally (if at all), especially given this topic. If there is no such framework on HN, especially given the topic... That's what I'd like to understand. I will try to remember this time :/ Sorry Dang!! Don't want to be an unnecessary burden!! Question: If my comment had ONLY consisted of quotes from the Quran/Hadith, would that also be flagged? I did my homework here (regarding the muslim thing) and the one unifying thing I found is the specific religious beliefs in Islam, which literally every terrorist quotes (here is one of many examples I found: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1481T5/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1481T5/). The difficulty I seem to be having here is me not understanding why this rational endeavour I undertook is somehow wrong. I feel like simply researching this was a mistake at this point, which is weird (and seemingly only applicable to this one topic- I have NOT found this to be the case with ANY other topic I've researched... but that is perhaps the nature and the danger with religious beliefs) https://newrepublic.com/article/81178/the-invention-islamophobia https://newrepublic.com/article/81178/the-invention-islamoph... Admittedly, some of my language was probably a bit edgy.
      • pvg 3y ago
        why this rational endeavour I undertook is somehow wrong. The fact that something is bad for a nerd messageboard is not some absolute judgement on its wrongness or rightness. 'This or that religion is better or worse than some other religion' is not a discussion that works on HN and, as you know, is not allowed here. There's no 'rational' or 'good faith' variant you can come up that would work so just don't do it on this forum.
• steve76 3y ago
  [dead]
• yyyk 3y ago
  If you had an inkling of a genocide going on and a chance to act, obviously you'd immediately do anything in your power to stop it? Despite the judges being appointed by their own countries*, I'm sure they have humanity. So this is an acquittal in all but name. Oh, they'll keep monitoring and the case will take years, but the result is obvious even now. * e.g. It's obvious the Russian judge has strong incentives to vote as Putin tells them to, otherwise they'd have to move to a windowless basement where the only access is by an elevator...
  • alephnan 3y ago
    > If you had an inkling of a genocide going on and a chance to act, obviously you'd immediately do anything in your power to stop it? Doesn’t seem people care about what’s going in Africa. People care here because this is a war of religion. And by that, I mean whether Western countries remain increasingly supreme (in terms of the world order).
• WuxiFingerHold 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    There's some good links to additional resources here. There is a "hide" option for the story if you don't want to see it. Personally I think if all we ever see is tech here we will lose sight of the bigger picture.
  • dang 3y ago
    HN has always had some amount of political content—not much, but some. For more information, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146184 and the links there.
  • kylecazar 3y ago
    Despite the name, HN has never been constrained to stories about IT, tech and startups. It's the first sentence of the guidelines: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
  • reducesuffering 3y ago
    Feel free to. You can easily ignore this one thread out of hundreds.
• Berniek 3y ago
  Firstly, the conflict in the GAZA strip is war. Pure and simple. Realistically this war is being fought politically in the worlds media. The fight is for public opinion. So the orders of the IJC are about war. The hair splitters may want to change the nature of war to "genocide" by one side rather than condemn BOTH sides in the conflict. "but we can only take evidence from XYZ and only on matters ABC" It seems to me to be a case of the UN wanting to have a seat at the table. They have become more & more irrelevant in matters of real importance or conflict. This ruling is pretty meaningless regardless of what your beliefs are. Its just more media circus. We can argue about statistics and false testimony who is right and which side is credible but we are just adding to the noise. Most terrorist organizations & actions are the direct result of one group having no political power. It ceases when that group obtains political power. It seems to me the original attack by HAMAS was simply to ensure that there is more war and that war can be fought in the worlds media. This ruling and the whole procedure is just more of the same. Wars usually continue to be prosecuted till one (or both) side loses the political will to continue. Does anyone here really believe Israel will lose that political will, regardless of world opinion? Hasn't in the past. Just like Russia.
• jnsaff2 3y ago
  What is the guidance regarding commenters who are obvious trolls, propagandists and bad faith actors? Being kind to them is completely wasted effort. Replying to them is also wasted effort as they won't be persuaded. However leaving bullshit unchallenged might make trusting bystanders believe that this is actually the truth.
  • tim333 3y ago
    Polite factual refutation probably works.
    • jnsaff2 3y ago
      I wish this was true. It usually leads to those super long reply-battles dang was referring to.
      • YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
        It doesn't have to. One comment refuting a contention with clear references to support the refutation is enough to make one's point. There is no stronger position than the truth, as one understands it. And if one is wrong after all, because they misunderstand the facts or they are missing some facts, it's not a loss, but a win, to find out through a, ahem, Frank Exchange of Views.
    • cultofmetatron 3y ago
      yea I tried that. I posted links to all my sources as well as opinions from credible human rights organizations. they just play the game of being obtuse to the very end and then gaslight you about needing to backup my opinions as if there weren't at least 2-3 inks for every assertion I make. one side of this debate is very much NOT acting in good faith because they rely on the status quo being maintained to continue what they are doing
      • YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
        So what? People will see your sources and see what the other person writes and they can make up their own minds.
• stanfordkid 3y ago
  It's kind of funny reading HN comments comparing this to WWII. Israel was given the land after WWII as some sort of weird hand washing by western governments. People already lived there. The claims that Hamas is like "Germany" trying to eliminate Jews are laughably absurd. These are people without a military fighting with AK-47s and rocket launchers against one of the most sophisticated armies on the planet -- F-35 jets and laser guided munitions. How can we blame Hamas when it is Israel that is stealing Palestinian homes to add Jewish settlers? Imagine someone coming to your house with a bulldozer kicking you out and placing new people there. This is literally what a settlement is and it is condemned by most of the UN outside of the United States. It is also important to remember that Israel did not exist before 1948. There was a lot of violence that occurred against Palestinians during it's formation -- within 2 generations of the current generation -- rapes, murders, displacement. I recommend watching the documentary film Tantura which outlines some of this. There is some pretty horrific stuff... 70 year old Israeli men laughing about old stories of raping women. Feeding men their own cut-off genitals etc. There is a reason the "Nakba" is not allowed to be mentioned in Israel. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16378034/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt16378034/ There also seems to be only a very basic understanding of the political realities behind why Hamas exists in this forum. "Big bad boogeyman Islamic terrorists" vs "Secular free modernity" is a stupid way to look at this. The Israeli government does not want a Palestinian state. Hamas was very much uplifted by the Israeli government since as early as the 80s because they delegitimize the idea of a free Palestine in the international sphere. They are easy to negotiate against because they are extremists. Even given their extremism, Hamas does not want to "genocide Jews" -- this is another absurd claim that is propagated but has no basis. Hamas is also not ISIS. They are a resistance movement against an occupying power that uses violent means to influence political realities. This is dirty dirty work and many horrible things happen when you give 20 year olds AK-47s. I don't support it. But the existence of Hamas is very much an expected outcome of military occupation. It is interesting to note that the founder of Hamas was 8 year old when he saw 15 Palestinian men executed at point blank range by Israeli soldiers. He is also a pediatrician and a geneticist. In general, I think people on this forum view terrorism through a very childish lens. It's a bit like calling everything a "programming language" ... well yeah maybe C++ has some similarities to Typescript ... but they are very different beasts. Osama bin laden and Hamas may have shared political objectives and ideals but they are not completely equivalent. To summarize my feelings: Israel has definitively built a great civilization -- but we musn't equate that with some sort of moral cleanliness. Hamas is a terrorist organization -- but we musn't equate that with a lack of real grievances. The statistics don't lie: Israel has killed more women and children in 100 days than any other recent modern military conflict. It has used more munitions than the US did for the entirety of the Iraq war. It's a ridiculous response that, given the context above, is nothing short of genocide.
• silexia 3y ago
  Has anyone read about how the UN itself had thousands of its employees support and celebrate the October 7th murder and raped of innocent Israelis? Do not trust their anti-semitic statements.
• cranberryturkey 3y ago
  https://globalthreat.info https://globalthreat.info