Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's location in relation to Israel, the Mediterranean, Egypt, Suez canal, etc.
That doesn't really answer it? I have yet to see how this little strip of land is so valuable to our interests
You need to look offshore.
ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
111–120 of 203 posts
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've switched who has veto powers before. Soviet Union to Russia and the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China. There is no reason we can't replace another government.
Both of those cases involve the dissolution of the state holding the veto power. While dissolving the UK would be hilarious, I imagine they would veto it.
The Republic of China is still around. The country we generally refer to as Taiwan is actually the Republic of China.
India is way larger both population and geographically than the UK just like the People's Republic of China is compared to the Republic of China so it seems like there is a precedent to do it.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#113Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
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 d…
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.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 d…
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…
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.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a somewhat complex question to answer, and one that can't truly be untangled from the broader history of the I/P conflict. But the base idea is this: you can't fight terrorism with bombs. Israel's stated goals in this war don't make sense: even if they could eliminate every single Hamas (military) operative, the kind of assault they are perpetrating is obviously going to give rise to a new wave of militants,…
> They would have had to work with the non-militant parts of Hamas leadership and the PLO of the West Bank and with neighboring Arab countries to bring these murderers to justice I don't really see how this could work? As far as I know, all Hamas leadership supports the Oct 7 attack. The PLO and neighboring Arab countries don't really have power in Gaza.
Is that surprising, considering how Israel had treated Palestinians before that date?
If mere support is a hangup, then supporters of Israel's genocidal retaliation must similarly be excluded from talks.
I speak sardonically, of course: preconditions to negotiation are rarely helpful to achieving a negotiated outcome.
Here's one example: if Israel starts by treating Palestinians as human beings equal to Israeli people, without preconditions, it would remove a lot of Hamas leverage, plus it's the right thing to do.
Then, a bilateral peace committee seeking to punish genocide perpetrators on either side, perhaps as judged by the ICJ, can be established.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
During the Falklands War the discussion was around military deaths, not civilian deaths. The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity). It's a completely different situation. Edit: just to flesh out my position here a bit. Civilian deaths are unavoidable in…
> The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity). There is also a deliberate propaganda effort to blur the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. Look at every conservative news source that reports on pro-Palestinian protests. Every one of them uses the…
[flagged]
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If people who support an immoral attack are military combatants, then clearly we should consider that the vast majority of Israel's population, who support the current genocide, are military combatants. Of course, this is completely insane logic and I don't believe so at all. Killing a civilian is abhorrent, whether that civilian might support an atrocity or not, as long as they weren't actually involved in it.
[flagged]
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does covered mean here? Who is covered?
Section 2013: > (3) Covered allied persons.--The term ``covered allied persons'' means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to…
Grim. Thanks for digging that up.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
If people who support an immoral attack are military combatants, then clearly we should consider that the vast majority of Israel's population, who support the current genocide, are military combatants. Of course, this is completely insane logic and I don't believe so at all. Killing a civilian is abhorrent, whether that civilian might support an atrocity or not, as long as they weren't actually involved in it.
[flagged]
The real question, of course, is WHAT TO DO once someone violates this principle. As the Israelis have done time and time again, and again, and again.