491–500 of 1001 posts
[flagged]
[flagged]
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
I’ve heard this line from people who say the West Bank and Gaza are the occupied land, to those who say all of Israel is occupied land. The former makes sense. The latter is extreme.
> like apartheid South Africa was dismantled
South Africa wasn’t as militarised as the Levant has become, unfortunately. As long as Iran seeks the destruction of Israel, itself and through its proxies, any Mandela-type accounting is probably fruitless. (I am open to being convinced otherwise.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note that the least you can say is that escalation is happening on both sides. Oct 7 level of atrocities has never been seen before in israel.
Yes. That is why I said: faced with larger threats What I can add is that this is indeed not just a "larger" threat for them. It "activated" a millennium-deep Jewish trauma (through pogroms up to the Holocaust). Deep, very deep.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Israel believes they are demonstrating restraint From the section of the ICJ ruling dealing with dehumanizing language used by Israeli officials: > "I have released all restraints . . . You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals" -- Mr Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister of Israel
[flagged]
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.
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.