Israel v Hamas

Even if no civilians in Gaza had been killed at all, the anti-Semites, anti-Israel, anti-West, terrorist-apologists ,would still be just as vocal in their criticisms of Israel.
 
Penge Eagle said:
Whether you like it or not, the Geneva Conventions are only upheld through formal legal findings and the ICJ is the body to make those determinations. You obviously don't care about due process and want a mob to deliver justice. History tells us that never works well.
Click to expand...
Of course I care about due process. It protects the weak from the powerful but is not designed to allow the powerful to hide behind it and make excuses for abuses.

Situations like in Gaza cannot wait for due process to run its course. Hence my analogy of a serial not being arrested. The international community, who are as far from a “mob” as is imaginable, have tried to arrest Israel’s activities by publicly shaming them. That matters, whether or not YOU like it.

The time for formal due process will arrive. The time to stop killing the innocents and taking land that isn’t theirs is now.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course I care about due process. It protects the weak from the powerful but is not designed to allow the powerful to hide behind it and make excuses for abuses.

Situations like in Gaza cannot wait for due process to run its course. Hence my analogy of a serial not being arrested. The international community, who are as far from a “mob” as is imaginable, have tried to arrest Israel’s activities by publicly shaming them. That matters, whether or not YOU like it.

The time for formal due process will arrive. The time to stop killing the innocents and taking land that isn’t theirs is now.
Click to expand...

You can never admit you're wrong 😂😂
 
ouzo said:
I believe that its the definition of Genocide that is wrong and causes the problem. On the UN site they have the following:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Effectively they are saying that killing any one single individual could be considered as genocide, which is ridiculous. Any act against one of the prescribed groups is therefore considered genocide.

To my mind, genocide should be the act of trying to completely eliminate a group. In that context, I do not consider it to be genocide in Gaza. However, I do consider that there are war crimes that should be answered.
Click to expand...

They do it with "famine" too. If they miss lunch it's considered a "famine"
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Of course I can. I am married. It’s an absolute prerequisite.

If I am wrong over this though then so are some of the most prestigious institutions in the world. I know where my bets would be placed!

By the way, by what authority do you pronounce who is right, or wrong?
Click to expand...

How many times do you have to be told. It's the ICJ who makes the ruling.
 
Penge Eagle said:
How many times do you have to be told. It's the ICJ who makes the ruling.
Click to expand...
The ICJ is completely political these days and is not taken seriously by real countries. Contrary to what you are going to get told. It's just used to piss off political opponents in a power game. However, the rulings are worth absolutely nothing unless you've already either lost, or completely fallen from grace. Whilst powerful, the ICJ can do nothing. They'll be threatening Trump next. That's how meaningless it is: but it tells you which side their on. Undermined by Brics largely.
 
Penge Eagle said:
How many times do you have to be told. It's the ICJ who makes the ruling.
Click to expand...
How many times do you need to be told that an ICJ ruling is NOT the only thing that matters!

You are recommending shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted! Only in this case we are not chasing happy horses who have escaped confinement. We are talking about death and destruction.

When the overwhelming weight of international opinion is that what Israel has done, both in Gaza and in building settlements in the occupied territories, breaks the Geneva conventions then relying on an eventual ICJ decision on whether, or not, these meet a legal threshold is an excuse for inaction. It’s not a reason.

Those opinions matter. All of them. As the likelihood of the ICJ failing to agree with the overwhelming opinion of other experts, and instead agreeing with a self serving opinion by one of the participants seems minimal to non existent to me, then deliberately ignoring these opinions could well become part of the evidence.

So doing so not only results in continued death and destruction it also results in Israel becoming an international pariah which is ultimately not in their best interests.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
How many times do you need to be told that an ICJ ruling is NOT the only thing that matters!

You are recommending shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted! Only in this case we are not chasing happy horses who have escaped confinement. We are talking about death and destruction.

When the overwhelming weight of international opinion is that what Israel has done, both in Gaza and in building settlements in the occupied territories, breaks the Geneva conventions then relying on an eventual ICJ decision on whether, or not, these meet a legal threshold is an excuse for inaction. It’s not a reason.

Those opinions matter. All of them. As the likelihood of the ICJ failing to agree with the overwhelming opinion of other experts, and instead agreeing with a self serving opinion by one of the participants seems minimal to non existent to me, then deliberately ignoring these opinions could well become part of the evidence.

So doing so not only results in continued death and destruction it also results in Israel becoming an international pariah which is ultimately not in their best interests.
Click to expand...
The ICJ is political posturing. Nothing else. What matters is what the US thinks. As it's backed up by real and actual power and money. Something you seem to struggle to grasp.
All the pro Palestine matches in the world have not mattered. The threat of arrests and rulings haven't mattered. But when the US decides to act: then people are forced to listen. Have a read up on how power works and on who really makes up the ICJ these days.
It's in front of your face but you refuse to see it. No doubt, because you don't like it. Plenty of things we all don't like: but it doesn't alter the reality.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
How many times do you need to be told that an ICJ ruling is NOT the only thing that matters!

You are recommending shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted! Only in this case we are not chasing happy horses who have escaped confinement. We are talking about death and destruction.

When the overwhelming weight of international opinion is that what Israel has done, both in Gaza and in building settlements in the occupied territories, breaks the Geneva conventions then relying on an eventual ICJ decision on whether, or not, these meet a legal threshold is an excuse for inaction. It’s not a reason.

Those opinions matter. All of them. As the likelihood of the ICJ failing to agree with the overwhelming opinion of other experts, and instead agreeing with a self serving opinion by one of the participants seems minimal to non existent to me, then deliberately ignoring these opinions could well become part of the evidence.

So doing so not only results in continued death and destruction it also results in Israel becoming an international pariah which is ultimately not in their best interests.
Click to expand...

Deary me! 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

International opinion is not binding law. If you treat accusations as convictions then the ICJ is totally pointless!

Walk away and take the L.
 
Penge Eagle said:
Deary me! 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

International opinion is not binding law. If you treat accusations as convictions then the ICJ is totally pointless!

Walk away and take the L.
Click to expand...
Deary me indeed!

I am not for a moment arguing that international opinion is binding law! As has been pointed out the rulings of the ICJ are often ignored anyway so their purpose is much less binding than pejorative.

What I am pointing out is that the opinion of major, well respected international institutions matter. Something you sought to deny. Because of the current inherent weaknesses of the ICJ you could argue those opinions matter even more than the ICJ’s does. In the court of international public opinion.

Suggesting that only an ICJ conviction matters is to deny reality and attempt to hide behind an obvious fallicy. That Israel uses such tactics to justify their actions doesn’t mean they hold water. Not that such a fervent apologist and denier as you seem to be will be able to realise that, let alone admit it.
 
ASCPFC said:
The ICJ is political posturing. Nothing else. What matters is what the US thinks. As it's backed up by real and actual power and money. Something you seem to struggle to grasp.
All the pro Palestine matches in the world have not mattered. The threat of arrests and rulings haven't mattered. But when the US decides to act: then people are forced to listen. Have a read up on how power works and on who really makes up the ICJ these days.
It's in front of your face but you refuse to see it. No doubt, because you don't like it. Plenty of things we all don't like: but it doesn't alter the reality.
Click to expand...
I have no problem at all in grasping the current political realities. Realities that are likely to change, quite possibly much sooner than some anticipate.

The ICJ rulings aren’t pointless because they cast shame and outrage, even if they remain unenforceable. Their problem is they come after events and are incapable of correcting harms. Which is why the pronouncements by the wide range of other institutions which have all reached similar conclusions are so important. They matter because pressure matters. Pressure within the USA matters as it does elsewhere. If that pressure results in the USA gradually reducing its protection of Israel because it sees greater value in supporting other allies then everything changes.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I have no problem at all in grasping the current political realities. Realities that are likely to change, quite possibly much sooner than some anticipate.

The ICJ rulings aren’t pointless because they cast shame and outrage, even if they remain unenforceable. Their problem is they come after events and are incapable of correcting harms. Which is why the pronouncements by the wide range of other institutions which have all reached similar conclusions are so important. They matter because pressure matters. Pressure within the USA matters as it does elsewhere. If that pressure results in the USA gradually reducing its protection of Israel because it sees greater value in supporting other allies then everything changes.
Click to expand...
They are only interested in certain cases. For example: have they ruled on the treatment of religious minorities in China? Can Xi Ping travel without threat of arrest? Their bias is a bit more than obvious. It's political.
 
ASCPFC said:
They are only interested in certain cases. For example: have they ruled on the treatment of religious minorities in China? Can Xi Ping travel without threat of arrest? Their bias is a bit more than obvious. It's political.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because no state has brought a case to them? They would then have to get China’s agreement to participate.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Deary me indeed!

I am not for a moment arguing that international opinion is binding law! As has been pointed out the rulings of the ICJ are often ignored anyway so their purpose is much less binding than pejorative.

What I am pointing out is that the opinion of major, well respected international institutions matter. Something you sought to deny. Because of the current inherent weaknesses of the ICJ you could argue those opinions matter even more than the ICJ’s does. In the court of international public opinion.

Suggesting that only an ICJ conviction matters is to deny reality and attempt to hide behind an obvious fallicy. That Israel uses such tactics to justify their actions doesn’t mean they hold water. Not that such a fervent apologist and denier as you seem to be will be able to realise that, let alone admit it.
Click to expand...

Repeating yourself (with more waffle) doesn't make it true.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top