4 ms·

Wait is that a statement in support of Hamas? Or is it just unethical actions from Palestinians that get that treatment? Otherwise wouldn't an occupation follow

Wait is that a statement in support of Hamas? Or is it just unethical actions from Palestinians that get that treatment? Otherwise wouldn't an occupation followed by a blockade count as an unethical action that doesn't merit an ethical response?

surfingdino 2y ago
The day ICJ goes after the political and financial supporters of Hamas and orders Hamas to stop using the people of Palestine as live shields to bear the brunt of the Israeli wrath will be the day when I will agree with the ICJ.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Mhmm that sure sounds like whatboutism though. Also, Hamas is literally sanctioned by most of the western hemisphere. I guess the day Israel gets any consequence (and I mean any, even a single official condemnation and sanction) from the west, is the day that I'd agree that the ICJ should focus on the other side.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  'I will agree with the court when it agrees with me and does what I want' is certainly a position. I'm sure most criminal suspects and their supporters [0] feel the same way, and would love for their personal judgement to be so favored. Putin, for example. 0: This is a sensitive topic, so to be extra clear, I am referring to the criminal case against Bibi in the ICC and the genocide case against Israel and Hamas in the ICJ, and those who support the defendants in the 1st of those and half or more of the defendants in the other.
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    It is easier to agree with judgements that help resolve conflicts. This one aims to deliver justice to victims on both sides, but doesn't resolve the core issue, doesn't even name all parties responsible for this bloodbath. Hamas is a proxy for other players and has been using Palestinians as a human shield in their fight against Israel. The core issue in that conflict is religion. It is used to derail any attempts at resolving the situation or provide a path to peace; it is used to drape revenge in the veil of "justice" on both sides. There is no reason why both sides could not work together on resolving their issues, but religion will not allow it. Therefore, courts will be issuing judgements that only add to the feeling of injustice and won't resolve the core issue.
    - mardifoufs 2y ago
      That's just revisionism though. The PLA had a lot of Christian Palestinians. It's just that as the conflict got more viscious, groups like Hamas started emerging and basing themselves on religion. Even then, Hamas isn't Al Qaeda. Its core is still based on Palestinian nationalism. Israel also has tons and tons religious extremism but it wouldn't be fair to say that Israel fights for religious reasons. It just comes down to an extreme and probably unsolvable fixation on the land from both sides.
      - surfingdino 2y ago
        I wrote "both sides". Religion is at the core of this dispute. Why did Jews want to go back to the Holy Land and not some place else? Religion. Why does Iran want to wipe out Israel from the face of the Earth? Religion. All sides of the Palestinian conflict have strong groups of influence who base their demands on religious grounds, because when you cannot deny facts or do not want to start a long, hard road to peace and reconciliation saying "my made up deity told me so" is apparently reason good enough to start killing people.
        ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        When your asks are things like "treat us as people equal to you" and "stop the secret police arrests and detention and torture of our children" and "give us self determination" and "stop genociding us", the world is unsurprisingly receptive to your asks. Hence, the world's current support for Palestine via the UN. Religion is a red herring here. What must be done first and foremost is Israel, the party with all the power here, treats all people equally, with equal rights. Doing so will take the wind out of the sails of Hamas. If Israel's goal is genocide, an independent investigation of Israel's actions will show that they are different*. * - An independent investigation of Israel's actions shows that they are different.
        surfingdino 2y ago
        The extremists from both sides have to be removed from the conversation. Extremists on both sides are using religion to justify political goals and want to achieve political goals through military action. Half-measures will only result in suspension of atrocities for a brief moment while both sides re-arm. You cannot talk about what's going on without discussing Hamas' rise to power, removal of political opposition, and making preparations for an attack that resulted in what has been going on since last year. They took Palestinians hostage and used them to turn the world against Israel. How is that not genocidal? Palestinians are used in a political game for political gains. Does it justify Israel's actions? No. Does is present Hamas as a saviour of the Palestinian people? No.
- ronjobber 2y ago
  Regardless of agreement with the ICJ or not, the quasi-statehood of Palestine complicates how the ICJ can target Hamas, much less non-governmental actors like PIJ. To my knowledge, despite over two decades of issues related to state/non-state conflicts, the institutions that make and implement international law have yet to resolve how to handle these issues.

surfingdino 2y ago

The day ICJ goes after the political and financial supporters of Hamas and orders Hamas to stop using the people of Palestine as live shields to bear the brunt of the Israeli wrath will be the day when I will agree with the ICJ.

mardifoufs 2y ago
Mhmm that sure sounds like whatboutism though. Also, Hamas is literally sanctioned by most of the western hemisphere. I guess the day Israel gets any consequence (and I mean any, even a single official condemnation and sanction) from the west, is the day that I'd agree that the ICJ should focus on the other side.
ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
'I will agree with the court when it agrees with me and does what I want' is certainly a position. I'm sure most criminal suspects and their supporters [0] feel the same way, and would love for their personal judgement to be so favored. Putin, for example. 0: This is a sensitive topic, so to be extra clear, I am referring to the criminal case against Bibi in the ICC and the genocide case against Israel and Hamas in the ICJ, and those who support the defendants in the 1st of those and half or more of the defendants in the other.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  It is easier to agree with judgements that help resolve conflicts. This one aims to deliver justice to victims on both sides, but doesn't resolve the core issue, doesn't even name all parties responsible for this bloodbath. Hamas is a proxy for other players and has been using Palestinians as a human shield in their fight against Israel. The core issue in that conflict is religion. It is used to derail any attempts at resolving the situation or provide a path to peace; it is used to drape revenge in the veil of "justice" on both sides. There is no reason why both sides could not work together on resolving their issues, but religion will not allow it. Therefore, courts will be issuing judgements that only add to the feeling of injustice and won't resolve the core issue.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    That's just revisionism though. The PLA had a lot of Christian Palestinians. It's just that as the conflict got more viscious, groups like Hamas started emerging and basing themselves on religion. Even then, Hamas isn't Al Qaeda. Its core is still based on Palestinian nationalism. Israel also has tons and tons religious extremism but it wouldn't be fair to say that Israel fights for religious reasons. It just comes down to an extreme and probably unsolvable fixation on the land from both sides.
    - surfingdino 2y ago
      I wrote "both sides". Religion is at the core of this dispute. Why did Jews want to go back to the Holy Land and not some place else? Religion. Why does Iran want to wipe out Israel from the face of the Earth? Religion. All sides of the Palestinian conflict have strong groups of influence who base their demands on religious grounds, because when you cannot deny facts or do not want to start a long, hard road to peace and reconciliation saying "my made up deity told me so" is apparently reason good enough to start killing people.
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        When your asks are things like "treat us as people equal to you" and "stop the secret police arrests and detention and torture of our children" and "give us self determination" and "stop genociding us", the world is unsurprisingly receptive to your asks. Hence, the world's current support for Palestine via the UN. Religion is a red herring here. What must be done first and foremost is Israel, the party with all the power here, treats all people equally, with equal rights. Doing so will take the wind out of the sails of Hamas. If Israel's goal is genocide, an independent investigation of Israel's actions will show that they are different*. * - An independent investigation of Israel's actions shows that they are different.
        surfingdino 2y ago
        The extremists from both sides have to be removed from the conversation. Extremists on both sides are using religion to justify political goals and want to achieve political goals through military action. Half-measures will only result in suspension of atrocities for a brief moment while both sides re-arm. You cannot talk about what's going on without discussing Hamas' rise to power, removal of political opposition, and making preparations for an attack that resulted in what has been going on since last year. They took Palestinians hostage and used them to turn the world against Israel. How is that not genocidal? Palestinians are used in a political game for political gains. Does it justify Israel's actions? No. Does is present Hamas as a saviour of the Palestinian people? No.
ronjobber 2y ago
Regardless of agreement with the ICJ or not, the quasi-statehood of Palestine complicates how the ICJ can target Hamas, much less non-governmental actors like PIJ. To my knowledge, despite over two decades of issues related to state/non-state conflicts, the institutions that make and implement international law have yet to resolve how to handle these issues.