And then they bombed the safe areas. Look it up. You’re wrong about this. The ICJ has agreed to continue the case. They are clearly convinced that there is a plausibility that Israel has committed genocide. Do you think you’re smarter than the 17 judges sitting on the ICJ for this case?
I will read it and see where my prediction of how the case would be disposed of on the pleadings was flawed.
In light of the high casualties, a preliminary injunction probably makes sense. I bet Israel is already in compliance with it. I’ll comment again after I read it this weekend.
The order, aside from jurisdiction and standing, makes two significant findings: that the humanitarian condition may likely deteriorate before there is a finding on the merits, leading to irreparable harm of the rights South Africa seeks to vitiate; and the second is that some of the allegations of proven could plausibly meet the definition of genocide or related crimes. That’s Paragraphs 54 and 72. That’s good enough for a preliminary injunctive order in any court.
Obviously you disagree but I think Israel is already in compliance with the order. Humanitarian corridors are open. Food is rolling in. Medicine rolling in. Bombings have slowed down. Civilian casualties have dropped off. Whether Israel is in compliance is not a factor in ordering the provisional measures. It only adopted a few of the numerous measures South Africa sought.
One major fact noted is that Israel is investigating and prosecuting its own citizens who have called for “extermination of Palestinians” and the like, for the crime of incitement. The Court commends Israel for doing so.
On the other hand, in Paragraph 82 they call on Hamas to release all hostages unconditionally. Obviously, Hamas will not comply.
The issuing of preliminary orders means that they have deemed the risk of genocide in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli government to be plausible. The judges voted overwhelming in agreement with that ruling. One judge voted for the provisional measures based solely on the question of intent and the quotes by Israeli leaders.
That’s true, plausible. That’s taking the allegations as true, and resolving all reasonable doubt in the applicant’s favor, and the allegations in the complaints in my view, while stating a plausible case for genocide, are a bunch of bullshit, half truths, and exaggerations.
Nobody disputes that 25,000 people have been horribly killed. The dispute is why. Israel is going to on in evidence that virtually everyone was warned multiple times to leave, and it’s going to put on evidence that for virtual every bombing there was a legit military target.
Let’s see if Hamas complies with the order, and let’s the hostages go. What do you think they will do?
Well, Hamas is not a state, nor is it a signatory to the genocide charter, so this ruling really doesn’t apply to them. However, you’re right, they’ll probably continue holding the hostages as negotiating chips. To be clear, I condemn Hamas and the Israeli government. However, the 25,000 people killed weren’t all Hamas. Israel doesn’t even claim they were mostly Hamas. And of course Israel will provide evidence in an attempt to defend themselves, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered showing up.
You might be interested to know that Israel’s national security ministry, Itamar Ben-Gvir, tweeted “Hague Schmague” after the ICJ ruling. Does that sound like the sentiment of someone who intends to comply?
Please explain to me, without relying on evidence from Israel, the claims in South Africa’s complaints are bullshit. You have made a similar statement before but I don’t know what you think is bullshit, half-truths, or exaggerations. They use facts from independent sources or from Israel themselves when they can. They use quotes to show intent (it is rare to see this much evidence of intent). They showed video of soldiers echoing the genocidal rhetoric of the president and the prime minister. So which parts did they misrepresent?
Just read South Africa’s complaint. The most sensational claims are attributed to “reports” and fail to to include enough detail to fact to check the claims.
It’s a house of cards built on exaggerations and half truths. It also includes none of Israel’s side of the story, which includes two undeniable truths: they are warning people before air strikes and they are striking legit targets.
Literally three quarters of South Africa’s complaint is going to be simply ignored because Israel is going to be able to show a valid military target.
Should probably give South Africa’s case a read as well. 84 pages of facts that are pretty damning for Israel that were convincing enough for these judges. Maybe your bias presented you from believing the facts before your eyes?
Yeah, like I said. Try it again with the understanding that you’re point of view is not one held by experts who reviewed the same material. See if that changes anything.
I am an expert who has reviewed the material and there are many experts who also agree with me.
The countries with experts who agree with you: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Malaysia, Qatar, North Korea, Russia, Brazil, Algeria, and a few others I’m not remembering right now.
Here are the countries with experts who agree with me: USA, UK, the EU, NATO, France, Germany, Australia, Norway, Poland, and Canada.
You are siding with Iran over Canada. Does that change anything for you?
No you are incorrect. The Nazis didn’t warn anyone before doing actual carpet bombing of civilians.
Israel warns people before it bombs. Look it up.
And then they bombed the safe areas. Look it up. You’re wrong about this. The ICJ has agreed to continue the case. They are clearly convinced that there is a plausibility that Israel has committed genocide. Do you think you’re smarter than the 17 judges sitting on the ICJ for this case?
I will read it and see where my prediction of how the case would be disposed of on the pleadings was flawed.
In light of the high casualties, a preliminary injunction probably makes sense. I bet Israel is already in compliance with it. I’ll comment again after I read it this weekend.
“I’ll bet Israel is already in compliance with it.” They aren’t. Which is why the court needed to issue preliminary orders at all.
The order, aside from jurisdiction and standing, makes two significant findings: that the humanitarian condition may likely deteriorate before there is a finding on the merits, leading to irreparable harm of the rights South Africa seeks to vitiate; and the second is that some of the allegations of proven could plausibly meet the definition of genocide or related crimes. That’s Paragraphs 54 and 72. That’s good enough for a preliminary injunctive order in any court.
Obviously you disagree but I think Israel is already in compliance with the order. Humanitarian corridors are open. Food is rolling in. Medicine rolling in. Bombings have slowed down. Civilian casualties have dropped off. Whether Israel is in compliance is not a factor in ordering the provisional measures. It only adopted a few of the numerous measures South Africa sought.
One major fact noted is that Israel is investigating and prosecuting its own citizens who have called for “extermination of Palestinians” and the like, for the crime of incitement. The Court commends Israel for doing so.
On the other hand, in Paragraph 82 they call on Hamas to release all hostages unconditionally. Obviously, Hamas will not comply.
Saw you talking shit in another thread. You ever get around to reading this? Or maybe you’re too afraid to realize that you’re wrong.
I sure did. I even replied to you about it. What parts jump out at you as significant?
The issuing of preliminary orders means that they have deemed the risk of genocide in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli government to be plausible. The judges voted overwhelming in agreement with that ruling. One judge voted for the provisional measures based solely on the question of intent and the quotes by Israeli leaders.
*Edit: typo
That’s true, plausible. That’s taking the allegations as true, and resolving all reasonable doubt in the applicant’s favor, and the allegations in the complaints in my view, while stating a plausible case for genocide, are a bunch of bullshit, half truths, and exaggerations.
Nobody disputes that 25,000 people have been horribly killed. The dispute is why. Israel is going to on in evidence that virtually everyone was warned multiple times to leave, and it’s going to put on evidence that for virtual every bombing there was a legit military target.
Let’s see if Hamas complies with the order, and let’s the hostages go. What do you think they will do?
Well, Hamas is not a state, nor is it a signatory to the genocide charter, so this ruling really doesn’t apply to them. However, you’re right, they’ll probably continue holding the hostages as negotiating chips. To be clear, I condemn Hamas and the Israeli government. However, the 25,000 people killed weren’t all Hamas. Israel doesn’t even claim they were mostly Hamas. And of course Israel will provide evidence in an attempt to defend themselves, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered showing up.
You might be interested to know that Israel’s national security ministry, Itamar Ben-Gvir, tweeted “Hague Schmague” after the ICJ ruling. Does that sound like the sentiment of someone who intends to comply?
Please explain to me, without relying on evidence from Israel, the claims in South Africa’s complaints are bullshit. You have made a similar statement before but I don’t know what you think is bullshit, half-truths, or exaggerations. They use facts from independent sources or from Israel themselves when they can. They use quotes to show intent (it is rare to see this much evidence of intent). They showed video of soldiers echoing the genocidal rhetoric of the president and the prime minister. So which parts did they misrepresent?
They are already in compliance.
Just read South Africa’s complaint. The most sensational claims are attributed to “reports” and fail to to include enough detail to fact to check the claims.
It’s a house of cards built on exaggerations and half truths. It also includes none of Israel’s side of the story, which includes two undeniable truths: they are warning people before air strikes and they are striking legit targets.
Literally three quarters of South Africa’s complaint is going to be simply ignored because Israel is going to be able to show a valid military target.
Also, I’ve gone through my replies and your comments. You may have responded to someone else, but not to me.
Maybe.
Should probably give South Africa’s case a read as well. 84 pages of facts that are pretty damning for Israel that were convincing enough for these judges. Maybe your bias presented you from believing the facts before your eyes?
I did. 70 of the pages are circular reasoning and the worst allegations are attributed to “reports.”
The only question it raised in my mind is why is South Africa is doing Iran’s bidding.
Yeah, like I said. Try it again with the understanding that you’re point of view is not one held by experts who reviewed the same material. See if that changes anything.
I am an expert who has reviewed the material and there are many experts who also agree with me.
The countries with experts who agree with you: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Malaysia, Qatar, North Korea, Russia, Brazil, Algeria, and a few others I’m not remembering right now.
Here are the countries with experts who agree with me: USA, UK, the EU, NATO, France, Germany, Australia, Norway, Poland, and Canada.
You are siding with Iran over Canada. Does that change anything for you?