Live data from Hacker News

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

apnews.com

311–320 of 1001 posts

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

#311
post #83

[flagged]

> 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_contro...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US, under whichever administration, is in a very difficult position here. If the US stops all support immediately, this could be the end of Israel. Would that be just? I see a president carefully dancing on the thin line of supporting the Israel state while using the US leverage to stop the war (latest example: sending the CIA chief to the negotiating table). But this needs to be done without enabling Israel's bi…

> If the US stops all support immediately, this could be the end of Israel. How would Israel disappear? Palestine is clearly no match for them - who else is expected to suddenly move in? I certainly think we could stop funding their military while still pledging to support them if someone actually tries to invade. Keep in mind, Israel has it's own defense budget - it's not like it's military just disappears when US f…

> How would Israel disappear? Palestine is clearly no match for them - who else is expected to suddenly move in?

They've had wars with all their immediate neighbours since the modern state was created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflict#Notable_...

Some of those countries are more friendly now, but loss of USA support would be huge. Such a removal of support would IMO be extremely unlikely due to how USA internal politics looks like from outside.

American foreign policy wasn't parodied as "world police" for nothing.

> I certainly think we could stop funding their military while still pledging to support them if someone actually tries to invade.

Subtly and nuance? Oh how I wish any politics cared about that.

I'm assuming, from the PoV of Israel and the Jewish diaspora in the USA, that because the specific attack that set this in motion was much much worse (proportionally speaking) than the 9/11 attacks were to the USA, anything less than 100% uncritical total support will look like "a betrayal" or "giving in to terrorism", to enough of the Jewish electorate in the USA, as to make that kind of talk unviable for at least a decade.

Real people aren't Vulcans. Emotions are raw, and will remain that way for a long time. And so the cycle will continue until either one side or the other is dead, or some absolute negotiating genius steps in and manages something even more impressive than the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

(Makes me wish for Mo Mowlam to be reincarnated; good luck to you if she was an inspiration!)

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

#313

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.

> South Africa asks ICC to exempt it from Putin arrest https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2YY1E6/ SA does not really present itself as an earnest or true actor in the sphere oh human rights.

Arresting a head of a nuclear-armed state ? One that does not subscribe to the ICC ? How moronic would one have to be ?

Amusingly, the Biden govt had no issues officially supporting the ICC to deliver a ruling against Russia despite the US not being a party to the ICC themselves. That's like having your cake and eating it too.

None of China, India, Russia, and the United States are parties to the ICC.

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

#314
post #6

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.

Homo homini lupus.

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

#315
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The civilian death toll in Gaza has been tragically high but there hasn't been any independent verification. Regardless of what's on Wikipedia, we can't trust specific numbers.

Do you believe 695 Israeli civilians, 373 security forces and 71 foreigners, giving a total of 1,139? They're all numbers from the Israeli government.

Weird how only disputing the Hamas numbers as biased is a talking point.

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

#316
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern-day Zionism to me and many others means that Israel has the right to exist. It does not absolve many, including self-proclaimed Zionists, from criticizing some of Israel policies. On other hand, my interpretation of people who are self-proclaimed anti-Zionists logically flows from above statement that they believe that the present state of Israel DOES NOT have a right to exist. Which implies deportation of ext…

> Modern-day Zionism to me and many others means that Israel has the right to exist. I think the framing of this argument is so tricky, because states don't have any rights. States aren't human beings. There is so much to unpack in the statement "X state has a right to exist". > On other hand, my interpretation of people who are self-proclaimed anti-Zionists logically flows from above statement that they believe that…

Do you really think this is possible? Can you name a single state in the world with a majority muslim population that hasn't adopted any laws based on religion or passed any laws that discriminate against non-muslims?

Do you think it's realistic that if Israel is replaced by a new state tomorrow that has a majority arab muslim population it won't quickly become somewhat theocratic and enforce some degree of religious law against people of other religions? I think this outside view of a one state solution pretends the entire population of Israel believes in some sort of Western Democratic values and will provide a strong foundation of individual rights. I just don't see good evidence for that.

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

#317
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The number for just Mariupol alone very likely remains higher but there's no one to count the deaths there.

You can literally drive there and drink Bumble coffee on the beach.

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

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Why? Whose the enforcer?

Other countries have ignored the ICJ before.

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

#319
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

The Palestinians have been offered a two-state solution on more-or-less reasonable terms on at least two occasions. It isn't for me to say whether they were right to reject those offers, but the human cost of continued conflict has obviously been borne disproportionately by the Palestinians, particularly Palestinian civilians. Sadly, the actions of extremists on both sides have made the possibility of a two state solution increasingly remote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

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

#320
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 ruling is so politically ambiguous, so israel will probably be digesting it for awhile. Perhaps lowering the military activities.

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?)
Post reply on HN