Here’s all of the relevant documents, should all be in the [ICJ Case page](https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/case/192):
* [Order of 24 May 2024](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf)
* [Summary 2024/6 (Unofficial)](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-sum-01-00-en.pdf)
* [Press release 2024/47](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-pre-01-00-en.pdf)
* [Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-01-en.pdf)
* [Dissenting opinion of Judge *ad hoc* Barak](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf)
I urge people to at least skim the actual court opinion and the dissents before jumping to your default position on the conflict. The vote was 13-2, and the text of the order is here:
[https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf)
~~Ehud~~ Aharon Barak's dissent is here:
[https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf)
The [ICJ website](https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192) additionally has links to the second judge's dissent and additional declarations by three of the judges in favor.
Edit: Fixed wrong first name
> The Court finds it deeply troubling that many of these hostages remain in captivity and reiterates its
call for their immediate and unconditional release.
What I find frustrating is the ruling doesn't provide alternative means how Israel is supposed to accomplish this. They seem to be arguing Israel cannot legally win the war.
Understandable, but that's not the job of the ICC, or any court in general.
Edit: From all subs I am surprised about the necessity to point that out here.
A court doesn't make the rules/laws. It also doesn't enforce them.
It merely decides if a certain situation/approach/ action is complying or violating existing rules/laws. It's not its job to point out alternatives.
They are saying Israel must stop its war without any guarantee of the hostages being released. If they are going to do that it absolutely is their job to offer an alternative credible way to get the hostages back. Last time Israel tried to get a hostage back without military pressure it took 5 years and a 1000 for 1 exchange. Unless the court has some plan to force the release of the hostage I don't think most reasonable people really care if they think Israel should stop the war. Maybe if the"innocent civilians" in Gaza want this war to stop they should provide information on the hostages instead of doing things like capturing and taking them back to the terrorists when they escape or actively holding the hostages for the terrorists. We know from released hostage testimony that both of those things as well as sexual assault of hostages have happened.
If Israel had conducted themselves properly they wouldn't have these restrictions put on them. The idf is apparently incapable of carrying out this military campaign without violating international law. With that in mind, the Court is being very fair to Israel. Look at the previous orders, there is a clear trajectory in restrictions on Israel that correlates to the worsening humanitarian situation.
>"innocent civilians"
Nice
>they should provide information on the hostages
I have a feeling the decades of brutal Hamas governance where dissidents are tortured, dragged behind vehicles, thrown off rooftops or lynched in public, might have had an impact on how many are willing or able to speak out against them..
I disagree. Proportionality is minimizing civilian harm conditioned on military necessity.
Unless you take the standpoint the war is illegal, there needs to be alternative methods before declaring the actions illegal.
As an extreme example, if the enemy is about to launch a nuclear weapon at me and my only method to stop that is nuking them (in a sense partially destroying the people in the country), that shouldn't be getting deemed illegal. The Ruling fails to discuss this aspect.
IRONICALLY, this very same court issued a “decision” that basically stated they can’t determine if using a nuclear weapon to protect a state in danger of destruction would violate international law or not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Opinion_on_the_Legality_of_the_Threat_or_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons
Great read. My tl;Dr is that they are legal in the situation I described
What you're describing is a defensive action this order is only restricting offensive actions. The order doesn't discuss defensive actions because it's not the topic being discussed.
You're hinting that two extremes are the only options-dont protect your civilians or a heavy handed offense- and saying that Israel should ignore international law because of this. That's incredibly flawed reasoning.
So what'd be your alternative to launching an attack on Rafah?
Blockade Rafah indefinitely, until either Hamas surrenders or the population starves to death? That's going straight past war crimes into actual, genuine, no pretenses genocide.
Leave Gaza? Hamas leadership has stated they want to carry out more 10-7 style attacks, the hostages will never be returned, and we get this whole situation again in five or ten years.
Evacuate all the civilians? Gaza is small and no neighboring nation is willing to take them as refugees, so where? The rest of Gaza is damaged from the urban battles, tent cities can only hold so many people, and they're never being allowed into Israel proper.
How is Israel supposed to open the Rafah crossing? Invade Egypt?
The entire ruling is little more than wishful thinking, so much so that it devolves into nonsense.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the ruling Judge Tladi addresses your concerns in his declaration. Paragraph 16:
>The security concern relied on by Israel raises another issue. Israel has explained that to grant South Africa’s request “would mean that Hamas would be left unhindered and free to continue its attacks against Israeli territory and Israeli civilians”. Yet this position suggests a false choice between two extremes. It suggests that Israel is obliged either to allow the violation of its rights and those of its citizens or to engage in limitless operations causing the catastrophic consequences that have been so widely reported.
>The Court has ordered Israel to “halt its military offensive in Rafah”. The reference to “offensive” operations illustrates that legitimate defensive actions, within the strict confines of international law, to repel specific attacks, would be consistent with the Order of the Court. What would not be consistent is the continuation of the offensive military operation in Rafah, and elsewhere, whose consequences for the rights protected under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide has been devastating.
It enjoins Israel from invading Rafah. Even if it starts firing rockets en masse, Israel still can't invade to end it.
> and saying that Israel should ignore international law because of this
I didn't say that. Just that I'm frustrated the ruling bypasses the implication that Israel simply cannot legally defeat Hamas.
A court doesn't make the rules. It also doesn't enforce them. It just decides if a certain situation/approach/ action is complying or violating existing rules/laws. It's not his job to point out alternatives. Don't know why it is necessary to point that out.
Actions only violate rules if they are more severe than otherwise or they have the intent to murder civilians. A court just can't permanently rule "you can't invade a city" because that's not actually illegal unless you view the war as illegal.
In this case, the ruling is strictly speaking a provisional ruling because the court is still considering whether Israel has genocidal intent. Since they can just indefinitely defer that decision, they are basically just telling Israel it can't invade a city, which they really aren't supposed to be able to do. Ultimately to bar Israel (and not just defer forever), they need to conclude:
* Isreal is failing to minimize civilian casualties either because it is not using viable less deadly means or is intentionally trying to kill civilians (e.g. genocide them). Assuming no intent to just kill civilians, yes, they actually do need to compare to alternatives to establish military proportionality.
* Israel's war aim of forcing Hamas to surrender is illegal
Your whole point revolves round the fear that the ICC will deter the decision if it's a genocide and assumes that it ultimately will rule it is none. Which speaks for itself...
But yeah if there is a reasonable suspicion, at least, that there is a violation of a law(genocide), that's enough to issue a warrant, for **every** court in a laws based society that deserves this name. They do not have to explain what the suspect should have done differently.
> Which speaks for itself...
Yes, it gives a court authority well beyond what it was intended to have. Namely it can interfere in legal wars.
> But yeah if there a reasonable suspicion, at least, that there is a violation of a law(genocide)
I don't buy that Israel intending genocide has grounds for "reasonable suspicion".
> They do not have to explain what the suspect should have done differently.
I don't quite buy this. You can't just arrest someone for murder when evidence points to self-defense. You need to say where he plausibly exceeded the standard of self-defense (that is what he would have done differently)
>Yes, it gives a court authority well beyond what it was intended to have. Namely it can interfere in legal wars.
A) The court decides if this war is legal.
B) I was refering to what this says about you
>I don't buy that Israel intending genocide has grounds for "reasonable suspicion".
Doesn't matter the court and 90% of the rest of the world does.
>I don't quite buy this. You can't just arrest someone for murder when evidence points to self-defense. You need to say where he plausibly exceeded the standard of self-defense (that is what he would have done differently)
Again. If there is a suspicion that this crime was a murder and the suspect is though to continue there will be a warrant to arrest them.
If it was murder or self defense is decided in a trail, after he has been arrested.
Edit: and obviously the court doesn't define what is a murder or self defense and how people who did one of those are to be processed. They work within the framework of laws another body made
>A) The court decides if this war is legal
They haven't even done that yet. They are interfering with Israel overthrowing a terrorist group (though I recognize that many of these judge's home countries don't even view Hamas, an organization that terrorizes civilians, as a "terrorist group")
>I was refering to what this says about you
That I think a country should have a right to overthrow another country's government that attacked it?
>If there is a suspicion that this crime was a murder and the suspect is though to continue there will be a warrant to arrest them. If it was murder or self defense is decided in a trail, after he has been arrested.
You are saying the same thing. There needs to be suspicion the suspect had alternative means to murder as a means to protect themselves.
> They work within the framework of laws another body made
At some point, they just have to make things up. There's not a lot of well-established precedent that establishes Isreal's genocidal intention. Most of the earlier ruling relied on stretch interpretations of officials that would render most wars genocidal if upheld consistently.
They're a court, not a military advisor. It's up to Israel's generals and policy makers to decide how to comply with international law, not this court or any court. Courts determine if law is being followed, they don't advise on how to follow the law (that's the job of law makers)
Where's international law for Israeli citizens to live lives without the constant threat of terrorism? Where's international law for the families to get back at least bodies to bury?
It's a loaded question of course, I'm not expecting you to answer, but I hope you do see how these rulings don't take into account the realities on the ground. You are not dealing with two state entities that can be reasoned with, you are dealing with a terrorist organisation that also happens to be the government of Gaza when it suits them, and an organisation completely alienated from the population when it's more convenient (like in this case).
What this court is doing is putting Israel in an untenable position: leave rafah, keep hamas in charge, reopen a border that Egypt is keeping closed, and forget about the hostages. No other country in the world would accept those terms, they are ridiculous. They are acting politically to force Israel's hand to refuse to comply.
The ICJ and ICC have called out parties that breach international law in regards to harming Israeli citizens. The Court is being very fair to israel. Almost exceptionally fair. The first order was basically cautioning them to adhere to international law in light of statements made by Israeli government officials, the second order was a denial of SA's request for a halt, the third was merely asking for more coordination with foreign governments and NGOs for aid, only in this 4th order did they put an actual restriction on Israel. And that is because of Israeli military operations making the humanitarian situation worse.
Israel wouldn't be in this position if they could simply follow international law. No country should get an exception to IHL, that's a dangerous can of worms. The blame for these restrictions is solely on the IDF and Israeli policy makers for making this situation, this ruling possible.
They don't actually say this, but I feel this amounts to saying the war is illegal (or at least the goal to force the surrender of Hamas is).
Which is at least a legally consistent position to take.
In short, the order is saying that Rafah is currently not a valid military target. They make no claims about the legality or illegality of any actions up to this point.
They tried that but Hamas wanted guarantees of the war ending before all hostages were released and they wanted to be able to substitute dead bodies for live hostages during any part of the deal. That second part would effectively mean they can murder the hostages to prevent them from talking about how they were treated and then have the body over to satisfy the deal. Understandably Israel didn't agree to that.
In what world does a court advise the perpetrator on how they should proceed with what they are being condemned for? Are they advising Hamas, who also was called out, on how to attack Israel? No, but clearly you believe Israel deserves to complete the tasks they set for themselves and have the ICC tell them how to do it.
If they had one of the lowest ratios of civilian to combatant deaths for urban conflict, then I wouldn't have more issue with it than, say, the battles to remove ISIS. I'd assume it was a relatively carefully fought war.
And if I were just generally concerned for civilians regardless of background, I'd be significantly more concerned for the currently ongoing conflicts in Eritrea, Yemen, and Syria with some 200k, 400k, and 600k killed respectively. Not to mention the 4 million displaced in Yemen and 12 million displaced in Syria.
Cool, you just chalk it up to war as usual and keep it moving. See I think that makes you a ghoul, and regardless of the data you provide and stack up to support your ghoulishness, you’ll still be a ghoul. Israel is in the wrong, and to continue to defend them is wrong.
I see that you can't address the actual facts of the matter and have resorted to name calling. Very well. Enjoy taking your angst out on an anonymous internet stranger so that you don't have to suffer through the cognitive dissonance of reexamining your beliefs against new evidence.
Your faux concern for other humanitarian crises shows me your lack of actual interest in a discussion about human beings being slaughtered. Your facts do nothing but distract from the actual topic at hand, because you know people can care about two events at one time. The point isn’t that the ratio is low, or better than X. The point is that defining the discussion based on that exact thing is ghoulish. If you believe you’ve won an argument because a civilian kill ratio is 2:1 instead of 3:1 then what point is there having any sort of discussion with you?
The point of mentioning other events that are objectively worse humanitarian crisises, is to point out the double standards of anyone who spends tons of time on this topic, yet none on the other issues. Of course, if you actually do spend more time on any of those topics, you could just point that out and clarify your lack of double standards.
The point of discussing the civilian to combatant ratios is to show that this is similar to other wars. And while war is of course terrible, this can't be defined as something worse, like genocide, unless you also classify every serious war that has ever been fought as genocide.
As a non lawyer i the text very confusing. One way to read it seems to be that whatever israel does it should conform to the Genocide convention.
"The Court considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
Israel could very well take the weekend off and go back in saying hey we're conforming to the genocide convention now
can someone who has legal training give some clarity on this. And please no tik tok experts.
I'm no legal expert, so just providing sources who are. It seems it can be interpreted 2 ways explained here
https://x.com/mabecker17/status/1794023517500957062?t=cv8DOsIN-XCwsXl939Wngw&s=19
Here is a tweet from another lawyer with screenshots to two of the judges interpretations of it.
https://x.com/StefanTalmon/status/1794047941709091093?t=hPq53QAiLFRMX8oiS0mHvA&s=19
There was another 2 who generally agreed with the 2 judges above. Another one had a different interpretation.
Yeah there's just no way Israel will stop. [Even the Biden admin is now on board with the Rafa op.](https://www.arabnews.com/node/2514686/middle-east) (see also [this](https://www.wsj.com/articles/rafah-evacuation-israel-biden-administration-antony-blinken-jake-sullivan-hamas-3e3c85f7)).
What will happen despite the Court is as follows:
* Israel will complete the Rafah op over public American complaints and private American endorsement
* Israel will identify more Egyptian smuggling tunnels and Egypt will continue to be sidelined by the US
* Israel will perform some minor clearing up across the whole of Gaza and declare the Gaza war "effectively accomplished" once Sinwar and the last of the hostages (or their corpses) are located.
* Israel, the US, and the KSA will engage in negotiations over the KSA-USA military treaty, KSA-Israel normalization, and a KSA-backed reatructuring of the Palestinian Authority as part of a "permanent step" towards the formation of a Palestinian state (hopefully after a decade or so of occupation, rebuilding, and a dramatic reeducation of the Palestinians)
* the international community (read: China, Russia, Iran, and their supporters in the UN) and Hamas supporters worldwide will be angry
If you think this is what will happen you live in a fantasy world. Likud will never allow for a Palestinian state to exist and Netanyahu will extend this war for as long as he can so as to avoid facing up to his corruption charges
You're missing that Netanyahu is on the way out in a couple years or less an that will radically change the whole situation. Likud's support was in decline before the conflict and has taken a nosedive since.
There are more politicians in likud than just Bibi. Also Israel in terms of politics has veered increasingly to the right. He's unpopular because of the corruption etc his policies pertaining to Palestine are however quite popular
Israel will butcher more civilians and then wonder what its end game is, and why only the US can stand them.
Israel will then discover that there is no end to this war via civilian deaths.
Israel will end up discovering that ideas cannot be beaten by bullets, and that the notion of keeping a subjugated Palestinian population in outdoor ghettos will no longer be tolerated by the world.
Israel should start thinking now about how to deal with a newly minted Palestinian state. But foresight is not exactly the forte of the current Israeli government.
Looking at the last 75 years of history, before the 67 war, 73 wars and anything was “occupied” there were other excuses then for why the Palestinians don’t actually build up their own land and a country of their own. Your solution for Israel leaving WB and Gaza entirely has proven too often that it doesn’t work, and instead you’ll just get more 10/7 attacks. Until a peace treaty is offered by a peaceful Palestinian govt nothing is going to change.
An astonishingly one-sided view of history.
How about this instead: Subjugating a free people and herding them into open air ghettos while stealing their land, bulldozing their houses, villages, and desecrating their cemeteries while openly engaging in triumphalism is not it turns out a winning strategy, nor one likely to bring peace.
As for building up their land. They did what they could, but you may recall that prior to October 7th the Israelis kept Gaza isolated from the world, and used the threat of force several times to prevent foreign aid ships from docking. The solar generators, the de-salination plants, the hospitals, the universities etc. all lie in ruin, because they have been destroyed by Israeli bombing. Or as we have seen recently, the libraries have simply been set on fire, by Israeli troops who shamelessly pose for photos while the books behind them burn.
Of course.. the Palestinians with their fractured leadership, mostly run by terrorist groups bent on the destruction of Israel since the 80s has absolutely nothing to do with where they are. This recent war is the most perfect example of them not taking any responsibility for their terrible situation (starting a war and crying when there’s a strong response)
No one forced Israel to bomb the children, to destroy hospitals or to engage in famine warfare.
Israel decided to commit war crimes all on their own, no one forced their hand. No one made them do it.
The appalling acts of Hamas are not (and can never be) an excuse to engage in war crimes.
As for the fractured Palestinian leadership, I would remind you that this was Netanyahu's 'masterstroke' to keep the Palestinians divided and weak. This is a matter of public record.
> Putting all of your military in and behind civilian targets doesn't kind of force that?
No. And if the only source for that is Israeli, well let's just say they have a gigantic credibility issue.
> Hamas decided to commit war crimes all on their own, no one forced their hand. No one made them do it.
Agreed.
> There's one side that has absolutely 0 regard for their civilians and it's Hamas.
Does the body count agree with you? No. It damn well doesn't, and it isn't even close. Don't defend war crimes, bro.
No Israel supported Hamas before they were actually Hamas and were instead a non-violent Gaza charity. Israel stopped supporting them when they became violent.
It's baffling how widespread that talking point is when it doesn't exactly take very long to learn the context behind it in that time period..
What, it would have been better to support the group who at the time was the ones commiting terror attacks while suppressing the islamist group acting as a charity doing community work , because the first group was secular?.. lol
It's not nonsense, they are describing Israel's dealings with the nonviolent precursor of Hamas 25-30 years before the events in that article you posted.
You mentioned Israel helping to "found" Hamas, which came in the form of tolerating / supporting an Islamic charity that operated social services in Gaza in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujama_al-Islamiya
Israel then discovered they were stockpiling weapons in the mid 1980s, arrested and jailed the leader, released him as part of prisoner exchanges (at which point he founded Hamas) arrested & convicted him again for more crimes, released him again as part of yet another prisoner exchange deal, and then ultimately killed him with a helicopter gunship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Ahmed_Yassin
I repeat, Netanyahu deliberately aided in the founding and funding of Hamas. This is a matter of public record.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/
Bibi thought he was being wicked smart.
So to be clear, the Court:
1) Decided that Israel must halt its Rafah offensive after evacuating over 1 million civilians out of the way to save their lives.
2) Insisted Israel open the Rafah crossing, which [was closed by Egypt](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypt-rejects-israeli-plans-rafah-crossing-sources-say-2024-05-16/), which refuses to reopen it.
3) Insisted Israel stop its operation based in part on the claims by UNRWA, an agency with [a long history of infiltration by Hamas](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-israel-attack-united-nations-unrwa-0ec8d325) and friendliness to it. Of course, it didn’t address that food aid truckloads now are 400% above what they were pre-war, and that studies have found an [average of](https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-study-finds-food-supply-to-gaza-more-than-sufficient-for-populations-needs/) 3,000 calories entering per person per day from January through April (over 50% more than the recommended amount set by the UN itself). Aid has only gone **up** since then, meaning the amount is likely even higher.
4) Did all this with a chief judge who is a [former Lebanese foreign minister but didn’t recuse himself](https://www.jpost.com/international/article-785552) from a case involving a state his country is at war with, who he repeatedly libeled as Foreign Minister.
5) Provided no alternative way for Israel to defeat Hamas in its last stronghold, basically telling Israel that it can’t win the war even if it floods Gaza with aid and evacuates civilians so Hamas can’t use them as shields.
6) Threw in a reminder that Hamas should release hostages, which I’m sure they’ll follow now that they’ve gotten an order telling Israel to stop putting military pressure on them.
7) Somehow now decided to impose on Israel not only the obligation not to win the war, but also to provide aid to Palestinian civilians even more. Despite the massive aid already being sent in. Which is just well beyond any war **in history**. This standard, applied to any other war ever, would make war impossible against terrorist groups. It is absurd.
Yeah, it’s a true wonder why Israel would ignore this insane order.
Edit: Looks like [two judges who voted for this judgment and two who voted against](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/three-icj-judges-argue-that-court-order-does-not-require-idf-halting-all-rafah-operations/) all have said that this doesn't actually require Israel to end the Rafah operation. The ambiguity clearly shows media outlets misunderstanding this very strangely vague phrase. The ICJ seems to be playing politics and made an intentionally obscure ruling with intentionally vague language. Israel will likely ignore the ruling given this ambiguity.
The Palestinian position seemingly adopted by UN orgs that Israel's only option is to surrender because the Palestinian's are too weak to fight back is so tiresome. It's not a viable route to improve anything, it's symbolic posturing and an endorsement of unending war from the Palestinians.
>The ambiguity clearly shows media outlets misunderstanding this very strangely vague phrase
there's no misunderstanding, they are intentionally writing this bs
Thanks for the great summary. The ICJ has proven itself to be just another hand of the corrupted antisemitic UN, trying to get a military advantage for Hamas in the war through insane methods, practically telling Israel they have no right of self defense and must abandon their hostages to starvation, torture, rape and slow agonizing death. Absolutely insane.
Protect Rafah? What a joke. A million people already left there. Most of it is completely empty already with nothing but Hamas and Israeli hostages.
>Decided that Israel must halt its Rafah offensive after evacuating over 1 million civilians out of the way to save their lives.
Civilians have been "evacuated" throughout the war - that didn't stop 35,000 of them being killed. The court judged that there is no clear path to moving around millions of civilians without causing massive casualties while you play whack-a-mole with Hamas.
>Insisted Israel open the Rafah crossing, which was closed by Egypt, which refuses to reopen it.
The subtext to Egypt's decision, which of course you did not say, is that Cairo has repeatedly rejected any move to force Gazans into the Sinai. Opening the crossing while it is under Israeli control presents that risk, and would force the Egyptian border authorities into an impossible position if millions of refugees starting pouring through.
>Insisted Israel stop its operation based in part on the claims by UNRWA, an agency with a long history of infiltration by Hamas and friendliness to it.
Poisoning the well. You can disagree with the facts of the verdict, but attacking reputations instead of the claims shows that you don't have much faith in your own counter-claims.
>Did all this with a chief judge who is a former Lebanese foreign minister but didn’t recuse himself from a case involving a state his country is at war with, who he repeatedly libeled as Foreign Minister.
Lebanon is not at war with Israel. It's absurd that you're focusing on the Lebanese judge and ignoring the in favour votes by judges from the US, Germany, France, Australia and India - all allies of Israel. The only judges who consistently voted against the measures were the Israeli judge and Ugandan VP.
>Provided no alternative way for Israel to defeat Hamas in its last stronghold, basically telling Israel that it can’t win the war even if it floods Gaza with aid and evacuates civilians so Hamas can’t use them as shields.
The court is not a war council. The measures are designed to prevent major humanitarian damage. It's not the job of the court to "provide alternatives" to Israeli war plans.
>Threw in a reminder that Hamas should release hostages, which I’m sure they’ll follow now that they’ve gotten an order telling Israel to stop putting military pressure on them.
It's not about the hostages. I don't know how you haven't figured it out by this point. Israel had so many opportunities to secure the remaining hostages but reneged on negotiations because they felt the Hamas terms were too strong. If it was about the hostages a deal would have been signed already.
>Somehow now decided to impose on Israel not only the obligation not to win the war.
Again, the judges are not basing their decisions on "winning" and "losing". They are aiming to limit massive humanitarian damage and further civilian casualties. It might be time to take a step back and think how you ended up in a situation where you're complaining about civilians on the brink of starvation receiving aid. And also how, ironically, that line of thinking feeds directly into the strategies of insurgencies like Hamas.
Your very first line is to claim that “35,000 civilians” have been killed, a number which implies you think that 0 Hamas members have died. Since 35,000 is the total death toll (I should say alleged entirely by Hamas).
Then you describe how Israel is totally at fault for Egypt closing the crossing based on Egypt’s irrational fears that somehow refugees will seek to cross it now but weren’t before. Which concedes, implicitly, **that Israel can’t open the crossing because it’s not the one who closed it.** So you admit Israel is being told to do something impossible rather than Egypt being ordered to do so.
You even claim Lebanon is not at war with Israel. If that’s true, I guess everyone must have missed the memo since they remain in a state of war.
This immediately tells me how fruitless this conversation will be. Good luck with that.
The Israeli government has at multiple times mentioned how moving Palestinians into the sinai desert was a great idea in order to avoid "casualties". Egypt's fears are far from irrational.
That’s because 2million Palestinians live there for now and have a population density of some 6000per km2.
However the question “ will Israel let these refugees back into Gaza , once they’ve felt with Hamas, or will the Gazans now remain in Egypt?
Again, if you have any experience with Israeli politics it'd be a Godsend for current government if someone took care of the civilians temporarily while Bibi goes to town flexing his muscles against Hamas and then returns the civillians while Israel is struggling to rebuild their economy after that show of strength
Israeli Prime Minister **Benjamin Netanyahu** has his top adviser, **Ron Dermer**, the minister of strategic affairs, with designing plans to “thin” the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip “to a minimum,” according to [https://www.israelhayom.co.il/magazine/hashavua/article/1488980](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/magazine/hashavua/article/1488980)
Netanyahu has a history of remarks that favour ethnic cleansing.
Max Hastings overhearing the young Benjamin Netanyahu dreaming of a war when, "if we get it right, we'll have a chance to get all the Arabs out... We can clear the West Bank and sort out Jerusalem."
Everyone knows full well that if the Palestinians are pushed out, they will not be returning.
Your link didn't work. I tried to google search for another source and I'm only getting Arabic propaganda websites. Do you have another reputable source for the quote?
"Everyone knows full well that if the Palestinians are pushed out, they will not be returning."
This is a bandwagon fallacy. Often used by the terrorist supporters who want to keep using Gazans as human shields to hurt Israeli political world-wide standing.
Oh. Can you quote the Israeli war cabinet that would make that decision saying that? Any member will do. A single member of the Israeli war cabinet. Someone from the war cabinet who said they think it’s a great idea to move Palestinians into the Sinai. Ideally recently so you have any proof this is likely to happen given recent events, but I’ll take any time during this war.
If you come back with quotes from someone with no war authority or policy making power, I’m going to ignore you. So please don’t waste both our time.
We’ll set aside that refugees should be accepted for temporary operations as they would be in any other war, for the time being, even though that’s an international legal obligation.
We’ll also set aside that one war cabinet member can’t decide it alone of course, since it requires a 3 person vote with majority decisions taking effect (2 in agreement). But I’ll take one.
Okay, so I asked for anyone with any warmaking authority, and you gave me none.
> lol go ahead and ignore me then bezalel smotrich said so much and sure yeah he's not part of the war cabinet but is a fundemental partner of Netanyahu's cabinet which means he has an influence on policy considering netanyahu doesn't want his coalition to fall
So he's not a part of the war cabinet. Interesting. Your argument is "well he has influence". Really? Because he's complaining that the [war cabinet ignores him](https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-threatens-to-quit-govt-over-hostage-deal-eisenkot-slams-far-fight-blackmail/).
> It's idiotic to act like only war cabinet members have an influence on what happens especially considering he sits on the security cabinet.
The Security Cabinet only has the authority to approve or review decisions of the war cabinet. They cannot set their own war policy.
> I do however agree with you that chances seem slim that they would do this considering the backlash they would get.
Nice to bury this in the middle.
> However, i also fully understand why the egyptians are scared of this being something to potentially happen which is the original point i was making. So obfuscating by needing quotes from war cabinet members instead of influential members of the governing coalition seems a bit like an easy way out of acknowledging that there is merit to Egypts fears
So basically "I couldn't find anyone with actual warmaking authority doing this, I don't think it's likely, but look at these people who have no war authority!"
Nice.
> https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-calls-voluntary-emigration-gazans-2023-11-14/ here's smotrichs quote
Not in the war cabinet.
> https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-lobbied-eu-to-pressure-egypt-into-accepting-gaza-refugees-20231031-p5egfs here is one of multiple articles that explains that netanyahu lobbied the US and the EU to pressure egypt to take refugees
So an unsourced report claims that back in October 2023 Netanyahu suggested that Egypt take refugees temporarily as required by international law, therefore Egypt closed the Rafah crossing in May 2024. That makes sense.
> https://www.timesofisrael.com/intelligence-ministry-concept-paper-proposes-transferring-gazans-to-egypts-sinai/ here is an article about a war time proposal that was drafted about transfering gazans.
Lol. This is a "war time proposal" that **was not a proposal**. This was a concept paper, which means it laid out every possible option.
It was composed by a ministry that doesn't even exist anymore.
The ministry had zero war authority, and it was dissolved because the ministry literally had no purpose or power.
The paper itself was a "hypothetical exercise" to lay out every possible option. This is the same as how the US has composed [hypothetical plans to invade Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red). Doesn't mean it's going to do so.
What a joke. You couldn't get anything actually indicating a legitimate fear of Egypt being forced to actually do what international law requires, so you decided to go off on a tangent and throw insults.
Hold on, you think only 35,000 people have died? The 30k number was being thrown around in February, was specific to civilians so yes, 35k not including Hamas is an accurate figure.
Please read the remainder of the post.
So to be clear, Hamas claims [35,709 people have died](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-health-ministry-updates-gaza-death-toll-to-35709/), in total and including Hamas fighters, and you think the number is wrong and that 30,000 or 35,000 civilians alone have died with untold more dead fighters?
Based on a number from Hamas of 30,000 in February that **also** was not “only civilians” and included Hamas fighters, as explained [here](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-run-health-ministry-says-gaza-death-toll-exceeds-30000/):
> The figures provided by Hamas are unverified, don’t differentiate between civilians and combatants, and list all the fatalities as caused by Israel — including those killed as a consequence of terror groups’ own rocket misfires.
You’re telling me you don’t know what the death toll has been. That’s bad.
I don’t have any inclination to waste my time reading the remainder of a take that gets so many basic points of fact wrong. Debunking every bit of it isn’t worth my time. I trust people can read the very clear and obvious factual errors starting in line 1 for themselves and adjust accordingly.
> Okay, so 35 becomes 24.
No, it doesn't. Good try, though.
> Your point is still soulless. If you genuinely think 24k dead are acceptable you really should be focused on bettering your life and not worsening others
To be clear, 24,000 civilian dead (which underestimates Hamas deaths, of course) for 11,000 terrorist dead is about the same ratio of what the US achieved in getting ISIS out of Mosul (4,000 ISIS members dead, 10,000 civilians dead).
I think it would be great if we could fight wars where terrorist groups didn't hide behind civilians. I think Israel is doing more to avoid civilians, in a harder fight, against a tougher enemy, in a denser urban environment, against an enemy using human shields more than anyone ever before, and I think there is unfortunately no alternative to defeating Hamas.
That's not my take, by the way. It's the opinion of the expert who [wrote the book on urban warfare](https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286).
Okay so let’s take a rough estimate based on ages and being male. 35% of the 37k are in that category. So about ~12-13k. The remaining 24k are one of three categories. Women, elderly people, and children. So it’s a 2:1 ratio of civilians to “Hamas”. That’s being generous. You’re right, 35k down to 24k makes this okay. Apologies!
So you don’t think women can be part of a military force?
You think Hamas who live-streamed murder and rape and dresses their kids up as suicide squads would be opposed to using child soldiers?
And, have you even stopped to ask if the ratio of women and children Hamas has given is accurate? (Hint it’s not)
Might want to rework those numbers some more there bud.
This comes from the GHB, which is supported by Israel and the US, so yeah I do think they are correct. Thankfully, just because you want to imagine every brown as a terrorist it doesn’t actually make them that.
> Yes it can open the crossing. Egypt's demand, before negotiations broke down, was that the Rafah crossing be returned to Palestinian control
So Israel can open the crossing by letting Hamas smuggle in weapons? Not only is it absurd to tell Israel it can't control the crossing and it's at fault for Egypt's closure, it is impossible to do anything besides let Hamas take it back over if you want to comply with Egypt's argument *and* the ICJ. Because there's no other "Palestinian control" possible, since the [Palestinian Authority refuses to take over the Rafah crossing](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/13/palestinian-authority-rejects-israeli-offer-to-control-rafah-border-crossing/).
So let's lay this out. Supposedly Israel:
1) Can't control the crossing into the territory it is at war with, despite that being absurd and never before a claim made in history.
2) Can't give it to Palestinian Authority officials to control, because [they refuse](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/13/palestinian-authority-rejects-israeli-offer-to-control-rafah-border-crossing/).
3) Can't get Egypt to [reopen it in the meantime](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypt-rejects-israeli-plans-rafah-crossing-sources-say-2024-05-16/).
So basically, Egypt can starve Palestinians by keeping it closed because Israel won't let Palestinians control the border while the war is going on, and Israel is at fault.
Do you realize how hilariously silly that is?
> This would prevent the aforementioned potential for ethnic cleansing/mass refugee movement from Gaza.
"Sure it's not happening, but there's a *potential*, so we have to stop it" is nonsense. Any war carries the "potential" for "ethnic cleansing". But you have to demonstrate it's actually *likely*, which it is not.
> Hezbollah remains in a state of war with Israel. Hezbollah is not Lebanon.
You seriously are unaware that Israel is in a state of war with Lebanon? Not just Hezbollah, which basically runs Lebanon anyways, but Lebanon itself?
Then surely you can point to the peace treaty where that exists.
> Hezbollah's campaign is deeply divisive in Lebanon, because detractors argue that it is dragging the country into a war without the consent of the state (Lebanon hasn't even had a president since 2022).
Hezbollah effectively runs the state at this point, and even if you wanted to argue the state barely exists (because it doesn't), Hezbollah has effective control of the territory of much of it anyways.
Nevertheless, Israel is in a state of war with **Lebanon**.
> Are you going to block me again so I can't respond? Shows how much faith you have in your arguments.
Maybe if you keep insulting me, I will. Since you did above, I'm inclined to do so, and you're justifying the decision pretty well.
I can’t speak to your other points, but I don’t understand how you could arrive at your conclusion in point (2). The source you provided literally does not definitively say anything about whose fault it is that the crossing is closed. Egypt says it’s because of Israeli military activity, while Israel says it’s Egypt’s fault. what you wrote is just straight up misinformation (if not, I'm happy to be proven wrong/educated)
> The two countries traded blame this week for the border crossing closure and resulting blockage of humanitarian relief.
> Egypt says Rafah's closure is due solely to the Israeli military operation. It has warned repeatedly that Israel's offensive aims to empty out Gaza by pushing Palestinians into Egypt.
> Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer said on Wednesday that Egypt had rejected an Israeli request to open Rafah to Gazan civilians who wish to flee.
> Egypt has rejected an Israeli proposal for the two countries to coordinate to re-open the Rafah crossing between Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, and to manage its future operation, two Egyptian security sources said.
It’s not clear to me whose fault it is or what exactly is happening from that source you provided.
Here is another [Reuters article](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-egypt-trade-blame-over-rafah-crossing-closure-2024-05-14/). From it:
> Israel said on Tuesday that it was up to Egypt to reopen the Rafah crossing and allow humanitarian relief into the Gaza Strip, prompting Cairo to denounce what it described as "desperate attempts" to shift blame for the blockage of aid.
It just seems to be a he said she said situation so far. Do you have any other sources? I’m interested in this and want to learn more
Egypt says “Israel’s military is why we closed it”, but Israel says Egypt is the one who made that call.
At the end of the day, every single thing you just said **explains Egypt made that decision, not Israel**. And despite Israeli attempts to reopen the crossing, Egypt refuses:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/food-bound-gaza-rots-sun-egypts-rafah-crossing-stays-shut-2024-05-24
Ultimately that is Egypt’s choice, not Israel’s. Israel has no ability to control Egypt and its decision to close the crossing.
It’s doubly absurd because Egypt not only keeps it closed, it claims it would reopen it if Palestinians staffed it. Except the Palestinian Authority [refuses to do so](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/13/palestinian-authority-rejects-israeli-offer-to-control-rafah-border-crossing/).
So to sum up, Israel is told by the ICJ to open a crossing that is open from the Israeli side, because Egypt closed it on their side due to “military operations” that would apparently not mean a closure if Palestinians ran the crossing, except Palestinians refuse to do so.
Therefore Israel has to open the crossing.
Yeah, that makes sense. Lmao.
Notably, those judges also clarified that the opinion does not halt the Rafah operation. And the Chief Judge has a lot of power to set procedure and results, and the fact they didn’t recuse themselves is very important. It indicates how biased the court is, and the fact the other judges were fine with Lebanon’s ex-FM (a state that doesn’t recognize Israel, is at war with it, and this person has a long history of bias against Israel) being part of the case says it all about them as well.
Someone being Jewish is also irrelevant, but thanks for playing up the trope that Jews must all be biased towards Israel and saying “but look he even went against his bias!” in so many words.
So, just for the record, you are accusing all three of the ICJ, ICC and UNRWA of bias against Israel?
>Someone being Jewish is also irrelevant, but thanks for playing up the trope that Jews must all be biased towards Israel and saying “but look he even went against his bias!” in so many words.
Someone being Lebanese is also irrelevant. I was more demonstrating that your logic falls flat when you consider the nationalities of the other judges who also voted affirmative. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you also believed the US, Germany, France etc. also had historical vendettas against Israel, therefore tarnishing the judges' votes.
I didn’t say someone being Lebanese is relevant. I said the fact he is a **former politician with a long record of Lebanese foreign policy involvement, including significant statements on Israel** indicates both bias and a requirement for recusal. Someone who stood up in the UN and previously accused Israel of things is not an unbiased arbiter. You should actually read what I say.
It would be like if Trump got to be a judge in a criminal trial involving Biden. Absolutely absurd.
As for the fact you responded to almost none of what I said, that’s par for the course by now. So I’ll ignore your irrelevant question in return.
I mean, I don’t want to make assertions or talk about things I don’t know anything about, which is why I can’t talk about the other points or judges since I haven’t done any research into it. But it is strange that OP claims Lebanon and Israel are at war when they are not… makes it harder to trust the rest of what’s contained in the post. And border skirmishes is not the same as war, as much as people want to hyperbolize it into that.
If you think Lebanon and Israel aren’t at war when they have been in a declared state of war for decades, that’s your choice. A state of war doesn’t mean they’re literally in the middle of battle, it means the states are actively hostile and have not signed a peace deal ending that active state of war.
North Korea and South Korea are not killing each other right now, but absolutely everyone understands they’re in a state of war.
It makes it hard to trust what you’re saying if you don’t understand this basic fact.
[Egypt has closed the crossing](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/as-egypt-refuses-to-open-rafah-crossing-much-needed-humanitarian-aid-begins-to-rot/).
Your comment is very 1984, "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia"-sounding.
So Israel took control from Hamas, Egypt closed it, and Israel is the bad guy who must open what Egypt closed?
Do people making this argument hear themselves? Are you seriously arguing Israel is the reason it’s closed because it doesn’t let Hamas run it…?
Why would they?
Literally every time the world has told Israel to show restraint (such as when raiding universities, hospitals, refugee areas, schools, etc), what does Israel find?
Mission objectives. Hamas targets. Tunnels. Munitions.
Why would an increasingly successful unstoppable force yield to an immovable object?
Because the UN said so? The UN which the Israeli government deems to be unfair?
I feel as though the only pro Israel UN nations might be the US, UK, India, and maybe Ukraine.
Israels war is completely unsuccessful in its goal to destroy Hamas. Not only are most of the tunnels still intact, but Hamas has regained control over the north of Gaza again: [www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-battles-hamas-northern-gaza-jabaliya-regrouped-rafah-blinken-rcna151919](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-battles-hamas-northern-gaza-jabaliya-regrouped-rafah-blinken-rcna151919)
And even the IDF believes Hamas will survive the war: [www.timesofisrael.com/report-idf-intel-assesses-that-hamas-will-survive-as-terror-group-post-war](http://www.timesofisrael.com/report-idf-intel-assesses-that-hamas-will-survive-as-terror-group-post-war)
How is Israeli civilian hostages should be retrieved from Gaza?
One can say that Israeli isn’t there to take hostages, but it means nothing since they have a right to do so, and claim that right. And since there is zero probability that Hamas will complain with ICJ and ICJ ordered halt operations,there is no any legal way for Israel to retrieve hostages.
Also, chief judge in ICJ from Lebanon and Lebanese, the same country that doesn’t have a peace with Israel and currently host Hamas and Hizbollah military (and not only military) who actively attacking Israel (more than several hundred rockets only in the last week). Yes, Hamas in Lebanon attacking as well. And chief judge from Lebanon.
And this is only regarding hostages, while there are legal obligation of Israel to get people who carried 7/10 to legal responsibility.
I am betting that history repeat itself and we’re witnessing new antisemitism, mainly from Muslim countries who slowly conquering demographically western civilization.
So, honest question, if Hamas doesn't apply to that order, why should Israel?
That's like the court ordering a thief to return his stolen goods to me and ordering me to stop breaking into his house to get my stuff back. If the thief doesn't want to return my stuff, why should I stop trying to get them back??
Optimistically, it's a chicken and egg problem where neither side believes the other side will comply with the court ruling.
Realistically, I doubt either side cares about this court's opinions, and knows that about the other side.
Honestly, what makes your believe that Israel would've invaded Gaza anyway if Hamas didn't take hostages or even returned all of them alive straight away?
IIRC, Bibi prioritized destroying Hamas over getting the hostages back. Oct 7 was pretty bad, even if Hamas didn't take any hostages; Israel would have wanted revenge just over the dead civilians.
> So, honest question, if Hamas doesn't apply to that order, why should Israel?
One is a democratic state, the other is a terrorist organization. They aren't supposed to be held up to the same standard of scrutiny.
Ok, I heard that example. But people in a democratic state die as easily as people in terrorist state. Why should a democratic state be penalised for protecting their civilians?
The UN consider Hamas a terror org and the PA the rightful rulers of a Palestinian state thus they won't order Hamas to do anything. If they did that would give Hamas legitimacy and would mean that like the many Palestinians that are abducted by the Israeli state under "national security" the hostages in Gaza would not be hostages but prisoners which I think no one wants.
Securing the border with Gaza and rerouting all aid to heavily inspected warehouses in cyprus that are delivered to the gaza strip via the new pier seems like a great way to prevent terrorists in the strip from making rockets. Water pipes do not need to be metal and dual purpose goods that allow the creation or rockets.
Plastic water pipes, sewers and gas lines work just fine.
No surprise there now can everyone clear the college campuses and instead invest in the companies that they want to influence and attend shareholder meetings? Don't like fracking buy the stock. Don't like fossil fuels buy the stock. Don't like massive layoffs buy the stock and if enough of you buy you can put your own directors in to do as you please or even steer the thing into the ground if that is your pleasure.
Becauae its a load of bollix. Everybody is wrong or has an agenda.
Amnnesty et all have presented their opinions on this. ICC prosecutor has requested warrant. ICJ had demanded to stop offensive and it seems more and nore likely they will find Israel guilty of Genocide. Biden had continously stated Israel is not doing enough in terms of protecting civillians and getting food in.
Do we really have to pretend false truths, its just tiresome at this stage.
Here’s all of the relevant documents, should all be in the [ICJ Case page](https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/case/192): * [Order of 24 May 2024](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf) * [Summary 2024/6 (Unofficial)](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-sum-01-00-en.pdf) * [Press release 2024/47](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-pre-01-00-en.pdf) * [Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-01-en.pdf) * [Dissenting opinion of Judge *ad hoc* Barak](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf)
I urge people to at least skim the actual court opinion and the dissents before jumping to your default position on the conflict. The vote was 13-2, and the text of the order is here: [https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-00-en.pdf) ~~Ehud~~ Aharon Barak's dissent is here: [https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240524-ord-01-05-en.pdf) The [ICJ website](https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192) additionally has links to the second judge's dissent and additional declarations by three of the judges in favor. Edit: Fixed wrong first name
Aaron Barak (former Israeli supreme court justice) not Ehud Barak (former PM).
> The Court finds it deeply troubling that many of these hostages remain in captivity and reiterates its call for their immediate and unconditional release. What I find frustrating is the ruling doesn't provide alternative means how Israel is supposed to accomplish this. They seem to be arguing Israel cannot legally win the war.
Understandable, but that's not the job of the ICC, or any court in general. Edit: From all subs I am surprised about the necessity to point that out here. A court doesn't make the rules/laws. It also doesn't enforce them. It merely decides if a certain situation/approach/ action is complying or violating existing rules/laws. It's not its job to point out alternatives.
They are saying Israel must stop its war without any guarantee of the hostages being released. If they are going to do that it absolutely is their job to offer an alternative credible way to get the hostages back. Last time Israel tried to get a hostage back without military pressure it took 5 years and a 1000 for 1 exchange. Unless the court has some plan to force the release of the hostage I don't think most reasonable people really care if they think Israel should stop the war. Maybe if the"innocent civilians" in Gaza want this war to stop they should provide information on the hostages instead of doing things like capturing and taking them back to the terrorists when they escape or actively holding the hostages for the terrorists. We know from released hostage testimony that both of those things as well as sexual assault of hostages have happened.
If Israel had conducted themselves properly they wouldn't have these restrictions put on them. The idf is apparently incapable of carrying out this military campaign without violating international law. With that in mind, the Court is being very fair to Israel. Look at the previous orders, there is a clear trajectory in restrictions on Israel that correlates to the worsening humanitarian situation.
>"innocent civilians" Nice >they should provide information on the hostages I have a feeling the decades of brutal Hamas governance where dissidents are tortured, dragged behind vehicles, thrown off rooftops or lynched in public, might have had an impact on how many are willing or able to speak out against them..
I disagree. Proportionality is minimizing civilian harm conditioned on military necessity. Unless you take the standpoint the war is illegal, there needs to be alternative methods before declaring the actions illegal. As an extreme example, if the enemy is about to launch a nuclear weapon at me and my only method to stop that is nuking them (in a sense partially destroying the people in the country), that shouldn't be getting deemed illegal. The Ruling fails to discuss this aspect.
IRONICALLY, this very same court issued a “decision” that basically stated they can’t determine if using a nuclear weapon to protect a state in danger of destruction would violate international law or not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Opinion_on_the_Legality_of_the_Threat_or_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons Great read. My tl;Dr is that they are legal in the situation I described
What you're describing is a defensive action this order is only restricting offensive actions. The order doesn't discuss defensive actions because it's not the topic being discussed. You're hinting that two extremes are the only options-dont protect your civilians or a heavy handed offense- and saying that Israel should ignore international law because of this. That's incredibly flawed reasoning.
So what'd be your alternative to launching an attack on Rafah? Blockade Rafah indefinitely, until either Hamas surrenders or the population starves to death? That's going straight past war crimes into actual, genuine, no pretenses genocide. Leave Gaza? Hamas leadership has stated they want to carry out more 10-7 style attacks, the hostages will never be returned, and we get this whole situation again in five or ten years. Evacuate all the civilians? Gaza is small and no neighboring nation is willing to take them as refugees, so where? The rest of Gaza is damaged from the urban battles, tent cities can only hold so many people, and they're never being allowed into Israel proper. How is Israel supposed to open the Rafah crossing? Invade Egypt? The entire ruling is little more than wishful thinking, so much so that it devolves into nonsense.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the ruling Judge Tladi addresses your concerns in his declaration. Paragraph 16: >The security concern relied on by Israel raises another issue. Israel has explained that to grant South Africa’s request “would mean that Hamas would be left unhindered and free to continue its attacks against Israeli territory and Israeli civilians”. Yet this position suggests a false choice between two extremes. It suggests that Israel is obliged either to allow the violation of its rights and those of its citizens or to engage in limitless operations causing the catastrophic consequences that have been so widely reported. >The Court has ordered Israel to “halt its military offensive in Rafah”. The reference to “offensive” operations illustrates that legitimate defensive actions, within the strict confines of international law, to repel specific attacks, would be consistent with the Order of the Court. What would not be consistent is the continuation of the offensive military operation in Rafah, and elsewhere, whose consequences for the rights protected under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide has been devastating.
It enjoins Israel from invading Rafah. Even if it starts firing rockets en masse, Israel still can't invade to end it. > and saying that Israel should ignore international law because of this I didn't say that. Just that I'm frustrated the ruling bypasses the implication that Israel simply cannot legally defeat Hamas.
A court doesn't make the rules. It also doesn't enforce them. It just decides if a certain situation/approach/ action is complying or violating existing rules/laws. It's not his job to point out alternatives. Don't know why it is necessary to point that out.
Actions only violate rules if they are more severe than otherwise or they have the intent to murder civilians. A court just can't permanently rule "you can't invade a city" because that's not actually illegal unless you view the war as illegal. In this case, the ruling is strictly speaking a provisional ruling because the court is still considering whether Israel has genocidal intent. Since they can just indefinitely defer that decision, they are basically just telling Israel it can't invade a city, which they really aren't supposed to be able to do. Ultimately to bar Israel (and not just defer forever), they need to conclude: * Isreal is failing to minimize civilian casualties either because it is not using viable less deadly means or is intentionally trying to kill civilians (e.g. genocide them). Assuming no intent to just kill civilians, yes, they actually do need to compare to alternatives to establish military proportionality. * Israel's war aim of forcing Hamas to surrender is illegal
Your whole point revolves round the fear that the ICC will deter the decision if it's a genocide and assumes that it ultimately will rule it is none. Which speaks for itself... But yeah if there is a reasonable suspicion, at least, that there is a violation of a law(genocide), that's enough to issue a warrant, for **every** court in a laws based society that deserves this name. They do not have to explain what the suspect should have done differently.
> Which speaks for itself... Yes, it gives a court authority well beyond what it was intended to have. Namely it can interfere in legal wars. > But yeah if there a reasonable suspicion, at least, that there is a violation of a law(genocide) I don't buy that Israel intending genocide has grounds for "reasonable suspicion". > They do not have to explain what the suspect should have done differently. I don't quite buy this. You can't just arrest someone for murder when evidence points to self-defense. You need to say where he plausibly exceeded the standard of self-defense (that is what he would have done differently)
>Yes, it gives a court authority well beyond what it was intended to have. Namely it can interfere in legal wars. A) The court decides if this war is legal. B) I was refering to what this says about you >I don't buy that Israel intending genocide has grounds for "reasonable suspicion". Doesn't matter the court and 90% of the rest of the world does. >I don't quite buy this. You can't just arrest someone for murder when evidence points to self-defense. You need to say where he plausibly exceeded the standard of self-defense (that is what he would have done differently) Again. If there is a suspicion that this crime was a murder and the suspect is though to continue there will be a warrant to arrest them. If it was murder or self defense is decided in a trail, after he has been arrested. Edit: and obviously the court doesn't define what is a murder or self defense and how people who did one of those are to be processed. They work within the framework of laws another body made
>A) The court decides if this war is legal They haven't even done that yet. They are interfering with Israel overthrowing a terrorist group (though I recognize that many of these judge's home countries don't even view Hamas, an organization that terrorizes civilians, as a "terrorist group") >I was refering to what this says about you That I think a country should have a right to overthrow another country's government that attacked it? >If there is a suspicion that this crime was a murder and the suspect is though to continue there will be a warrant to arrest them. If it was murder or self defense is decided in a trail, after he has been arrested. You are saying the same thing. There needs to be suspicion the suspect had alternative means to murder as a means to protect themselves. > They work within the framework of laws another body made At some point, they just have to make things up. There's not a lot of well-established precedent that establishes Isreal's genocidal intention. Most of the earlier ruling relied on stretch interpretations of officials that would render most wars genocidal if upheld consistently.
[удалено]
They're a court, not a military advisor. It's up to Israel's generals and policy makers to decide how to comply with international law, not this court or any court. Courts determine if law is being followed, they don't advise on how to follow the law (that's the job of law makers)
Where's international law for Israeli citizens to live lives without the constant threat of terrorism? Where's international law for the families to get back at least bodies to bury? It's a loaded question of course, I'm not expecting you to answer, but I hope you do see how these rulings don't take into account the realities on the ground. You are not dealing with two state entities that can be reasoned with, you are dealing with a terrorist organisation that also happens to be the government of Gaza when it suits them, and an organisation completely alienated from the population when it's more convenient (like in this case). What this court is doing is putting Israel in an untenable position: leave rafah, keep hamas in charge, reopen a border that Egypt is keeping closed, and forget about the hostages. No other country in the world would accept those terms, they are ridiculous. They are acting politically to force Israel's hand to refuse to comply.
The ICJ and ICC have called out parties that breach international law in regards to harming Israeli citizens. The Court is being very fair to israel. Almost exceptionally fair. The first order was basically cautioning them to adhere to international law in light of statements made by Israeli government officials, the second order was a denial of SA's request for a halt, the third was merely asking for more coordination with foreign governments and NGOs for aid, only in this 4th order did they put an actual restriction on Israel. And that is because of Israeli military operations making the humanitarian situation worse. Israel wouldn't be in this position if they could simply follow international law. No country should get an exception to IHL, that's a dangerous can of worms. The blame for these restrictions is solely on the IDF and Israeli policy makers for making this situation, this ruling possible.
No court (this is the ICJ not ICC) should be determining if states are allowed to win wars and rescue their civilians from genocidal terrorist groups.
Negotiations for hostage releases in exchange for winding down the war
They don't actually say this, but I feel this amounts to saying the war is illegal (or at least the goal to force the surrender of Hamas is). Which is at least a legally consistent position to take.
In short, the order is saying that Rafah is currently not a valid military target. They make no claims about the legality or illegality of any actions up to this point.
That's the same statement though as mine unless you believe Israel can defeat Hamas without invading Rafah; I don't see that position as credible
They tried that but Hamas wanted guarantees of the war ending before all hostages were released and they wanted to be able to substitute dead bodies for live hostages during any part of the deal. That second part would effectively mean they can murder the hostages to prevent them from talking about how they were treated and then have the body over to satisfy the deal. Understandably Israel didn't agree to that.
In what world does a court advise the perpetrator on how they should proceed with what they are being condemned for? Are they advising Hamas, who also was called out, on how to attack Israel? No, but clearly you believe Israel deserves to complete the tasks they set for themselves and have the ICC tell them how to do it.
The ICJ does not prohibit war, only genocide. It would not be genocidal to remove Hamas as the governing body over Gaza.
So if they were only taking out Hamas we’re good, but if they say kill 24,000 civilians then you’d have an issue?
If they had one of the lowest ratios of civilian to combatant deaths for urban conflict, then I wouldn't have more issue with it than, say, the battles to remove ISIS. I'd assume it was a relatively carefully fought war. And if I were just generally concerned for civilians regardless of background, I'd be significantly more concerned for the currently ongoing conflicts in Eritrea, Yemen, and Syria with some 200k, 400k, and 600k killed respectively. Not to mention the 4 million displaced in Yemen and 12 million displaced in Syria.
Cool, you just chalk it up to war as usual and keep it moving. See I think that makes you a ghoul, and regardless of the data you provide and stack up to support your ghoulishness, you’ll still be a ghoul. Israel is in the wrong, and to continue to defend them is wrong.
I see that you can't address the actual facts of the matter and have resorted to name calling. Very well. Enjoy taking your angst out on an anonymous internet stranger so that you don't have to suffer through the cognitive dissonance of reexamining your beliefs against new evidence.
Your faux concern for other humanitarian crises shows me your lack of actual interest in a discussion about human beings being slaughtered. Your facts do nothing but distract from the actual topic at hand, because you know people can care about two events at one time. The point isn’t that the ratio is low, or better than X. The point is that defining the discussion based on that exact thing is ghoulish. If you believe you’ve won an argument because a civilian kill ratio is 2:1 instead of 3:1 then what point is there having any sort of discussion with you?
The point of mentioning other events that are objectively worse humanitarian crisises, is to point out the double standards of anyone who spends tons of time on this topic, yet none on the other issues. Of course, if you actually do spend more time on any of those topics, you could just point that out and clarify your lack of double standards. The point of discussing the civilian to combatant ratios is to show that this is similar to other wars. And while war is of course terrible, this can't be defined as something worse, like genocide, unless you also classify every serious war that has ever been fought as genocide.
As a non lawyer i the text very confusing. One way to read it seems to be that whatever israel does it should conform to the Genocide convention. "The Court considers that, in conformity with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Israel could very well take the weekend off and go back in saying hey we're conforming to the genocide convention now can someone who has legal training give some clarity on this. And please no tik tok experts.
I'm no legal expert, so just providing sources who are. It seems it can be interpreted 2 ways explained here https://x.com/mabecker17/status/1794023517500957062?t=cv8DOsIN-XCwsXl939Wngw&s=19 Here is a tweet from another lawyer with screenshots to two of the judges interpretations of it. https://x.com/StefanTalmon/status/1794047941709091093?t=hPq53QAiLFRMX8oiS0mHvA&s=19 There was another 2 who generally agreed with the 2 judges above. Another one had a different interpretation.
Yeah there's just no way Israel will stop. [Even the Biden admin is now on board with the Rafa op.](https://www.arabnews.com/node/2514686/middle-east) (see also [this](https://www.wsj.com/articles/rafah-evacuation-israel-biden-administration-antony-blinken-jake-sullivan-hamas-3e3c85f7)). What will happen despite the Court is as follows: * Israel will complete the Rafah op over public American complaints and private American endorsement * Israel will identify more Egyptian smuggling tunnels and Egypt will continue to be sidelined by the US * Israel will perform some minor clearing up across the whole of Gaza and declare the Gaza war "effectively accomplished" once Sinwar and the last of the hostages (or their corpses) are located. * Israel, the US, and the KSA will engage in negotiations over the KSA-USA military treaty, KSA-Israel normalization, and a KSA-backed reatructuring of the Palestinian Authority as part of a "permanent step" towards the formation of a Palestinian state (hopefully after a decade or so of occupation, rebuilding, and a dramatic reeducation of the Palestinians) * the international community (read: China, Russia, Iran, and their supporters in the UN) and Hamas supporters worldwide will be angry
If you think this is what will happen you live in a fantasy world. Likud will never allow for a Palestinian state to exist and Netanyahu will extend this war for as long as he can so as to avoid facing up to his corruption charges
You're missing that Netanyahu is on the way out in a couple years or less an that will radically change the whole situation. Likud's support was in decline before the conflict and has taken a nosedive since.
And it's worth keeping in mind that it was a Likud government who made peace with Egypt and ended settlements in the Sinai so you never know.
Netanyahu will be out due to elections anyway
There are more politicians in likud than just Bibi. Also Israel in terms of politics has veered increasingly to the right. He's unpopular because of the corruption etc his policies pertaining to Palestine are however quite popular
There's no alternative to a two state solution so he'll have to
Israel will butcher more civilians and then wonder what its end game is, and why only the US can stand them. Israel will then discover that there is no end to this war via civilian deaths. Israel will end up discovering that ideas cannot be beaten by bullets, and that the notion of keeping a subjugated Palestinian population in outdoor ghettos will no longer be tolerated by the world. Israel should start thinking now about how to deal with a newly minted Palestinian state. But foresight is not exactly the forte of the current Israeli government.
Looking at the last 75 years of history, before the 67 war, 73 wars and anything was “occupied” there were other excuses then for why the Palestinians don’t actually build up their own land and a country of their own. Your solution for Israel leaving WB and Gaza entirely has proven too often that it doesn’t work, and instead you’ll just get more 10/7 attacks. Until a peace treaty is offered by a peaceful Palestinian govt nothing is going to change.
An astonishingly one-sided view of history. How about this instead: Subjugating a free people and herding them into open air ghettos while stealing their land, bulldozing their houses, villages, and desecrating their cemeteries while openly engaging in triumphalism is not it turns out a winning strategy, nor one likely to bring peace. As for building up their land. They did what they could, but you may recall that prior to October 7th the Israelis kept Gaza isolated from the world, and used the threat of force several times to prevent foreign aid ships from docking. The solar generators, the de-salination plants, the hospitals, the universities etc. all lie in ruin, because they have been destroyed by Israeli bombing. Or as we have seen recently, the libraries have simply been set on fire, by Israeli troops who shamelessly pose for photos while the books behind them burn.
Of course.. the Palestinians with their fractured leadership, mostly run by terrorist groups bent on the destruction of Israel since the 80s has absolutely nothing to do with where they are. This recent war is the most perfect example of them not taking any responsibility for their terrible situation (starting a war and crying when there’s a strong response)
No one forced Israel to bomb the children, to destroy hospitals or to engage in famine warfare. Israel decided to commit war crimes all on their own, no one forced their hand. No one made them do it. The appalling acts of Hamas are not (and can never be) an excuse to engage in war crimes. As for the fractured Palestinian leadership, I would remind you that this was Netanyahu's 'masterstroke' to keep the Palestinians divided and weak. This is a matter of public record.
[удалено]
> Putting all of your military in and behind civilian targets doesn't kind of force that? No. And if the only source for that is Israeli, well let's just say they have a gigantic credibility issue. > Hamas decided to commit war crimes all on their own, no one forced their hand. No one made them do it. Agreed. > There's one side that has absolutely 0 regard for their civilians and it's Hamas. Does the body count agree with you? No. It damn well doesn't, and it isn't even close. Don't defend war crimes, bro.
Until our victim tells us sorry for existing, the beating will continue.
there's nothing Israel can do until Palestine is ready to engage in good faith which they never have in any attempt at a two state solution
Israel helped found and fund Hamas. Please don't be ridiculous.
No Israel supported Hamas before they were actually Hamas and were instead a non-violent Gaza charity. Israel stopped supporting them when they became violent.
It's baffling how widespread that talking point is when it doesn't exactly take very long to learn the context behind it in that time period.. What, it would have been better to support the group who at the time was the ones commiting terror attacks while suppressing the islamist group acting as a charity doing community work , because the first group was secular?.. lol
This is complete nonsense. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
It's not nonsense, they are describing Israel's dealings with the nonviolent precursor of Hamas 25-30 years before the events in that article you posted. You mentioned Israel helping to "found" Hamas, which came in the form of tolerating / supporting an Islamic charity that operated social services in Gaza in the late 1970s and early 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujama_al-Islamiya Israel then discovered they were stockpiling weapons in the mid 1980s, arrested and jailed the leader, released him as part of prisoner exchanges (at which point he founded Hamas) arrested & convicted him again for more crimes, released him again as part of yet another prisoner exchange deal, and then ultimately killed him with a helicopter gunship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Ahmed_Yassin
I think you're thinking of Iran. I could link a map if you need one
I repeat, Netanyahu deliberately aided in the founding and funding of Hamas. This is a matter of public record. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/ Bibi thought he was being wicked smart.
they are both true, he may have helped in the creation but they have acted in bad faith every time they engage with Israel diplomatically
So to be clear, the Court: 1) Decided that Israel must halt its Rafah offensive after evacuating over 1 million civilians out of the way to save their lives. 2) Insisted Israel open the Rafah crossing, which [was closed by Egypt](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypt-rejects-israeli-plans-rafah-crossing-sources-say-2024-05-16/), which refuses to reopen it. 3) Insisted Israel stop its operation based in part on the claims by UNRWA, an agency with [a long history of infiltration by Hamas](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-israel-attack-united-nations-unrwa-0ec8d325) and friendliness to it. Of course, it didn’t address that food aid truckloads now are 400% above what they were pre-war, and that studies have found an [average of](https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-study-finds-food-supply-to-gaza-more-than-sufficient-for-populations-needs/) 3,000 calories entering per person per day from January through April (over 50% more than the recommended amount set by the UN itself). Aid has only gone **up** since then, meaning the amount is likely even higher. 4) Did all this with a chief judge who is a [former Lebanese foreign minister but didn’t recuse himself](https://www.jpost.com/international/article-785552) from a case involving a state his country is at war with, who he repeatedly libeled as Foreign Minister. 5) Provided no alternative way for Israel to defeat Hamas in its last stronghold, basically telling Israel that it can’t win the war even if it floods Gaza with aid and evacuates civilians so Hamas can’t use them as shields. 6) Threw in a reminder that Hamas should release hostages, which I’m sure they’ll follow now that they’ve gotten an order telling Israel to stop putting military pressure on them. 7) Somehow now decided to impose on Israel not only the obligation not to win the war, but also to provide aid to Palestinian civilians even more. Despite the massive aid already being sent in. Which is just well beyond any war **in history**. This standard, applied to any other war ever, would make war impossible against terrorist groups. It is absurd. Yeah, it’s a true wonder why Israel would ignore this insane order. Edit: Looks like [two judges who voted for this judgment and two who voted against](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/three-icj-judges-argue-that-court-order-does-not-require-idf-halting-all-rafah-operations/) all have said that this doesn't actually require Israel to end the Rafah operation. The ambiguity clearly shows media outlets misunderstanding this very strangely vague phrase. The ICJ seems to be playing politics and made an intentionally obscure ruling with intentionally vague language. Israel will likely ignore the ruling given this ambiguity.
The Palestinian position seemingly adopted by UN orgs that Israel's only option is to surrender because the Palestinian's are too weak to fight back is so tiresome. It's not a viable route to improve anything, it's symbolic posturing and an endorsement of unending war from the Palestinians.
UN keeps on eroding its own legitimacy :/
The world has gone mad. All of these “international” agencies have lost their clout and any respect they had
Israel too. It's an all-round travesty.
The false famine allegations are going to haunt humanity for decades to come.
Why are you spreading misinformation? [https://www.csis.org/analysis/famine-gaza](https://www.csis.org/analysis/famine-gaza) [https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-97/en/](https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-97/en/) [https://www.wfp.org/stories/gaza-updates-wfp-responds-hunger-crisis-rafah-incursion-cuts-access-warehouse](https://www.wfp.org/stories/gaza-updates-wfp-responds-hunger-crisis-rafah-incursion-cuts-access-warehouse) [https://apnews.com/article/gaza-famine-world-food-program-israel-hamas-war-476941bf2dc259f85a706408b2a665ff](https://apnews.com/article/gaza-famine-world-food-program-israel-hamas-war-476941bf2dc259f85a706408b2a665ff) [www.euronews.com/2024/05/04/northern-gaza-in-full-blown-famine-senior-un-official](http://www.euronews.com/2024/05/04/northern-gaza-in-full-blown-famine-senior-un-official) [https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children](https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/09/gaza-israels-imposed-starvation-deadly-children)
>The ambiguity clearly shows media outlets misunderstanding this very strangely vague phrase there's no misunderstanding, they are intentionally writing this bs
Thanks for the great summary. The ICJ has proven itself to be just another hand of the corrupted antisemitic UN, trying to get a military advantage for Hamas in the war through insane methods, practically telling Israel they have no right of self defense and must abandon their hostages to starvation, torture, rape and slow agonizing death. Absolutely insane. Protect Rafah? What a joke. A million people already left there. Most of it is completely empty already with nothing but Hamas and Israeli hostages.
>Decided that Israel must halt its Rafah offensive after evacuating over 1 million civilians out of the way to save their lives. Civilians have been "evacuated" throughout the war - that didn't stop 35,000 of them being killed. The court judged that there is no clear path to moving around millions of civilians without causing massive casualties while you play whack-a-mole with Hamas. >Insisted Israel open the Rafah crossing, which was closed by Egypt, which refuses to reopen it. The subtext to Egypt's decision, which of course you did not say, is that Cairo has repeatedly rejected any move to force Gazans into the Sinai. Opening the crossing while it is under Israeli control presents that risk, and would force the Egyptian border authorities into an impossible position if millions of refugees starting pouring through. >Insisted Israel stop its operation based in part on the claims by UNRWA, an agency with a long history of infiltration by Hamas and friendliness to it. Poisoning the well. You can disagree with the facts of the verdict, but attacking reputations instead of the claims shows that you don't have much faith in your own counter-claims. >Did all this with a chief judge who is a former Lebanese foreign minister but didn’t recuse himself from a case involving a state his country is at war with, who he repeatedly libeled as Foreign Minister. Lebanon is not at war with Israel. It's absurd that you're focusing on the Lebanese judge and ignoring the in favour votes by judges from the US, Germany, France, Australia and India - all allies of Israel. The only judges who consistently voted against the measures were the Israeli judge and Ugandan VP. >Provided no alternative way for Israel to defeat Hamas in its last stronghold, basically telling Israel that it can’t win the war even if it floods Gaza with aid and evacuates civilians so Hamas can’t use them as shields. The court is not a war council. The measures are designed to prevent major humanitarian damage. It's not the job of the court to "provide alternatives" to Israeli war plans. >Threw in a reminder that Hamas should release hostages, which I’m sure they’ll follow now that they’ve gotten an order telling Israel to stop putting military pressure on them. It's not about the hostages. I don't know how you haven't figured it out by this point. Israel had so many opportunities to secure the remaining hostages but reneged on negotiations because they felt the Hamas terms were too strong. If it was about the hostages a deal would have been signed already. >Somehow now decided to impose on Israel not only the obligation not to win the war. Again, the judges are not basing their decisions on "winning" and "losing". They are aiming to limit massive humanitarian damage and further civilian casualties. It might be time to take a step back and think how you ended up in a situation where you're complaining about civilians on the brink of starvation receiving aid. And also how, ironically, that line of thinking feeds directly into the strategies of insurgencies like Hamas.
Your very first line is to claim that “35,000 civilians” have been killed, a number which implies you think that 0 Hamas members have died. Since 35,000 is the total death toll (I should say alleged entirely by Hamas). Then you describe how Israel is totally at fault for Egypt closing the crossing based on Egypt’s irrational fears that somehow refugees will seek to cross it now but weren’t before. Which concedes, implicitly, **that Israel can’t open the crossing because it’s not the one who closed it.** So you admit Israel is being told to do something impossible rather than Egypt being ordered to do so. You even claim Lebanon is not at war with Israel. If that’s true, I guess everyone must have missed the memo since they remain in a state of war. This immediately tells me how fruitless this conversation will be. Good luck with that.
The Israeli government has at multiple times mentioned how moving Palestinians into the sinai desert was a great idea in order to avoid "casualties". Egypt's fears are far from irrational.
Temporarily moving Palestinian civillians into Sinai Deset while Israel is dealing with Hamas IS a great idea and why would anyone claim otherwise???
Would Israel let them back in ?
If you follow Israeli politics and history - even a little bit - you'd know that Israel hasn't made any moves to resettle Gaza since 2005
That’s because 2million Palestinians live there for now and have a population density of some 6000per km2. However the question “ will Israel let these refugees back into Gaza , once they’ve felt with Hamas, or will the Gazans now remain in Egypt?
Again, if you have any experience with Israeli politics it'd be a Godsend for current government if someone took care of the civilians temporarily while Bibi goes to town flexing his muscles against Hamas and then returns the civillians while Israel is struggling to rebuild their economy after that show of strength
How long is temporary? 1 year , 10years, 50years , a century? You didn’t answer my question , will Israel let them back in ?
Israeli Prime Minister **Benjamin Netanyahu** has his top adviser, **Ron Dermer**, the minister of strategic affairs, with designing plans to “thin” the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip “to a minimum,” according to [https://www.israelhayom.co.il/magazine/hashavua/article/1488980](https://www.israelhayom.co.il/magazine/hashavua/article/1488980) Netanyahu has a history of remarks that favour ethnic cleansing. Max Hastings overhearing the young Benjamin Netanyahu dreaming of a war when, "if we get it right, we'll have a chance to get all the Arabs out... We can clear the West Bank and sort out Jerusalem." Everyone knows full well that if the Palestinians are pushed out, they will not be returning.
Your link didn't work. I tried to google search for another source and I'm only getting Arabic propaganda websites. Do you have another reputable source for the quote? "Everyone knows full well that if the Palestinians are pushed out, they will not be returning." This is a bandwagon fallacy. Often used by the terrorist supporters who want to keep using Gazans as human shields to hurt Israeli political world-wide standing.
Oh. Can you quote the Israeli war cabinet that would make that decision saying that? Any member will do. A single member of the Israeli war cabinet. Someone from the war cabinet who said they think it’s a great idea to move Palestinians into the Sinai. Ideally recently so you have any proof this is likely to happen given recent events, but I’ll take any time during this war. If you come back with quotes from someone with no war authority or policy making power, I’m going to ignore you. So please don’t waste both our time. We’ll set aside that refugees should be accepted for temporary operations as they would be in any other war, for the time being, even though that’s an international legal obligation. We’ll also set aside that one war cabinet member can’t decide it alone of course, since it requires a 3 person vote with majority decisions taking effect (2 in agreement). But I’ll take one.
[удалено]
Okay, so I asked for anyone with any warmaking authority, and you gave me none. > lol go ahead and ignore me then bezalel smotrich said so much and sure yeah he's not part of the war cabinet but is a fundemental partner of Netanyahu's cabinet which means he has an influence on policy considering netanyahu doesn't want his coalition to fall So he's not a part of the war cabinet. Interesting. Your argument is "well he has influence". Really? Because he's complaining that the [war cabinet ignores him](https://www.timesofisrael.com/smotrich-threatens-to-quit-govt-over-hostage-deal-eisenkot-slams-far-fight-blackmail/). > It's idiotic to act like only war cabinet members have an influence on what happens especially considering he sits on the security cabinet. The Security Cabinet only has the authority to approve or review decisions of the war cabinet. They cannot set their own war policy. > I do however agree with you that chances seem slim that they would do this considering the backlash they would get. Nice to bury this in the middle. > However, i also fully understand why the egyptians are scared of this being something to potentially happen which is the original point i was making. So obfuscating by needing quotes from war cabinet members instead of influential members of the governing coalition seems a bit like an easy way out of acknowledging that there is merit to Egypts fears So basically "I couldn't find anyone with actual warmaking authority doing this, I don't think it's likely, but look at these people who have no war authority!" Nice. > https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-calls-voluntary-emigration-gazans-2023-11-14/ here's smotrichs quote Not in the war cabinet. > https://www.afr.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-lobbied-eu-to-pressure-egypt-into-accepting-gaza-refugees-20231031-p5egfs here is one of multiple articles that explains that netanyahu lobbied the US and the EU to pressure egypt to take refugees So an unsourced report claims that back in October 2023 Netanyahu suggested that Egypt take refugees temporarily as required by international law, therefore Egypt closed the Rafah crossing in May 2024. That makes sense. > https://www.timesofisrael.com/intelligence-ministry-concept-paper-proposes-transferring-gazans-to-egypts-sinai/ here is an article about a war time proposal that was drafted about transfering gazans. Lol. This is a "war time proposal" that **was not a proposal**. This was a concept paper, which means it laid out every possible option. It was composed by a ministry that doesn't even exist anymore. The ministry had zero war authority, and it was dissolved because the ministry literally had no purpose or power. The paper itself was a "hypothetical exercise" to lay out every possible option. This is the same as how the US has composed [hypothetical plans to invade Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red). Doesn't mean it's going to do so. What a joke. You couldn't get anything actually indicating a legitimate fear of Egypt being forced to actually do what international law requires, so you decided to go off on a tangent and throw insults.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You need to take the L my dude. You got absolutely kneecapped.
Hold on, you think only 35,000 people have died? The 30k number was being thrown around in February, was specific to civilians so yes, 35k not including Hamas is an accurate figure. Please read the remainder of the post.
So to be clear, Hamas claims [35,709 people have died](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-health-ministry-updates-gaza-death-toll-to-35709/), in total and including Hamas fighters, and you think the number is wrong and that 30,000 or 35,000 civilians alone have died with untold more dead fighters? Based on a number from Hamas of 30,000 in February that **also** was not “only civilians” and included Hamas fighters, as explained [here](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-run-health-ministry-says-gaza-death-toll-exceeds-30000/): > The figures provided by Hamas are unverified, don’t differentiate between civilians and combatants, and list all the fatalities as caused by Israel — including those killed as a consequence of terror groups’ own rocket misfires. You’re telling me you don’t know what the death toll has been. That’s bad. I don’t have any inclination to waste my time reading the remainder of a take that gets so many basic points of fact wrong. Debunking every bit of it isn’t worth my time. I trust people can read the very clear and obvious factual errors starting in line 1 for themselves and adjust accordingly.
[удалено]
> Okay, so 35 becomes 24. No, it doesn't. Good try, though. > Your point is still soulless. If you genuinely think 24k dead are acceptable you really should be focused on bettering your life and not worsening others To be clear, 24,000 civilian dead (which underestimates Hamas deaths, of course) for 11,000 terrorist dead is about the same ratio of what the US achieved in getting ISIS out of Mosul (4,000 ISIS members dead, 10,000 civilians dead). I think it would be great if we could fight wars where terrorist groups didn't hide behind civilians. I think Israel is doing more to avoid civilians, in a harder fight, against a tougher enemy, in a denser urban environment, against an enemy using human shields more than anyone ever before, and I think there is unfortunately no alternative to defeating Hamas. That's not my take, by the way. It's the opinion of the expert who [wrote the book on urban warfare](https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286).
Not quite. Gaza (Hamas) doesn't differentiate between civilians and Hamas 'soldiers', they've always reported a single number.
Okay so let’s take a rough estimate based on ages and being male. 35% of the 37k are in that category. So about ~12-13k. The remaining 24k are one of three categories. Women, elderly people, and children. So it’s a 2:1 ratio of civilians to “Hamas”. That’s being generous. You’re right, 35k down to 24k makes this okay. Apologies!
So you don’t think women can be part of a military force? You think Hamas who live-streamed murder and rape and dresses their kids up as suicide squads would be opposed to using child soldiers? And, have you even stopped to ask if the ratio of women and children Hamas has given is accurate? (Hint it’s not) Might want to rework those numbers some more there bud.
This comes from the GHB, which is supported by Israel and the US, so yeah I do think they are correct. Thankfully, just because you want to imagine every brown as a terrorist it doesn’t actually make them that.
[удалено]
> Yes it can open the crossing. Egypt's demand, before negotiations broke down, was that the Rafah crossing be returned to Palestinian control So Israel can open the crossing by letting Hamas smuggle in weapons? Not only is it absurd to tell Israel it can't control the crossing and it's at fault for Egypt's closure, it is impossible to do anything besides let Hamas take it back over if you want to comply with Egypt's argument *and* the ICJ. Because there's no other "Palestinian control" possible, since the [Palestinian Authority refuses to take over the Rafah crossing](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/13/palestinian-authority-rejects-israeli-offer-to-control-rafah-border-crossing/). So let's lay this out. Supposedly Israel: 1) Can't control the crossing into the territory it is at war with, despite that being absurd and never before a claim made in history. 2) Can't give it to Palestinian Authority officials to control, because [they refuse](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/13/palestinian-authority-rejects-israeli-offer-to-control-rafah-border-crossing/). 3) Can't get Egypt to [reopen it in the meantime](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypt-rejects-israeli-plans-rafah-crossing-sources-say-2024-05-16/). So basically, Egypt can starve Palestinians by keeping it closed because Israel won't let Palestinians control the border while the war is going on, and Israel is at fault. Do you realize how hilariously silly that is? > This would prevent the aforementioned potential for ethnic cleansing/mass refugee movement from Gaza. "Sure it's not happening, but there's a *potential*, so we have to stop it" is nonsense. Any war carries the "potential" for "ethnic cleansing". But you have to demonstrate it's actually *likely*, which it is not. > Hezbollah remains in a state of war with Israel. Hezbollah is not Lebanon. You seriously are unaware that Israel is in a state of war with Lebanon? Not just Hezbollah, which basically runs Lebanon anyways, but Lebanon itself? Then surely you can point to the peace treaty where that exists. > Hezbollah's campaign is deeply divisive in Lebanon, because detractors argue that it is dragging the country into a war without the consent of the state (Lebanon hasn't even had a president since 2022). Hezbollah effectively runs the state at this point, and even if you wanted to argue the state barely exists (because it doesn't), Hezbollah has effective control of the territory of much of it anyways. Nevertheless, Israel is in a state of war with **Lebanon**. > Are you going to block me again so I can't respond? Shows how much faith you have in your arguments. Maybe if you keep insulting me, I will. Since you did above, I'm inclined to do so, and you're justifying the decision pretty well.
I can’t speak to your other points, but I don’t understand how you could arrive at your conclusion in point (2). The source you provided literally does not definitively say anything about whose fault it is that the crossing is closed. Egypt says it’s because of Israeli military activity, while Israel says it’s Egypt’s fault. what you wrote is just straight up misinformation (if not, I'm happy to be proven wrong/educated) > The two countries traded blame this week for the border crossing closure and resulting blockage of humanitarian relief. > Egypt says Rafah's closure is due solely to the Israeli military operation. It has warned repeatedly that Israel's offensive aims to empty out Gaza by pushing Palestinians into Egypt. > Israeli government spokesperson David Mencer said on Wednesday that Egypt had rejected an Israeli request to open Rafah to Gazan civilians who wish to flee. > Egypt has rejected an Israeli proposal for the two countries to coordinate to re-open the Rafah crossing between Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip, and to manage its future operation, two Egyptian security sources said. It’s not clear to me whose fault it is or what exactly is happening from that source you provided. Here is another [Reuters article](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-egypt-trade-blame-over-rafah-crossing-closure-2024-05-14/). From it: > Israel said on Tuesday that it was up to Egypt to reopen the Rafah crossing and allow humanitarian relief into the Gaza Strip, prompting Cairo to denounce what it described as "desperate attempts" to shift blame for the blockage of aid. It just seems to be a he said she said situation so far. Do you have any other sources? I’m interested in this and want to learn more
Egypt says “Israel’s military is why we closed it”, but Israel says Egypt is the one who made that call. At the end of the day, every single thing you just said **explains Egypt made that decision, not Israel**. And despite Israeli attempts to reopen the crossing, Egypt refuses: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/food-bound-gaza-rots-sun-egypts-rafah-crossing-stays-shut-2024-05-24 Ultimately that is Egypt’s choice, not Israel’s. Israel has no ability to control Egypt and its decision to close the crossing. It’s doubly absurd because Egypt not only keeps it closed, it claims it would reopen it if Palestinians staffed it. Except the Palestinian Authority [refuses to do so](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/13/palestinian-authority-rejects-israeli-offer-to-control-rafah-border-crossing/). So to sum up, Israel is told by the ICJ to open a crossing that is open from the Israeli side, because Egypt closed it on their side due to “military operations” that would apparently not mean a closure if Palestinians ran the crossing, except Palestinians refuse to do so. Therefore Israel has to open the crossing. Yeah, that makes sense. Lmao.
Egypt could still allow aid in even if it doesn't want Gazans streaming in.
[удалено]
Notably, those judges also clarified that the opinion does not halt the Rafah operation. And the Chief Judge has a lot of power to set procedure and results, and the fact they didn’t recuse themselves is very important. It indicates how biased the court is, and the fact the other judges were fine with Lebanon’s ex-FM (a state that doesn’t recognize Israel, is at war with it, and this person has a long history of bias against Israel) being part of the case says it all about them as well. Someone being Jewish is also irrelevant, but thanks for playing up the trope that Jews must all be biased towards Israel and saying “but look he even went against his bias!” in so many words.
So, just for the record, you are accusing all three of the ICJ, ICC and UNRWA of bias against Israel? >Someone being Jewish is also irrelevant, but thanks for playing up the trope that Jews must all be biased towards Israel and saying “but look he even went against his bias!” in so many words. Someone being Lebanese is also irrelevant. I was more demonstrating that your logic falls flat when you consider the nationalities of the other judges who also voted affirmative. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you also believed the US, Germany, France etc. also had historical vendettas against Israel, therefore tarnishing the judges' votes.
I didn’t say someone being Lebanese is relevant. I said the fact he is a **former politician with a long record of Lebanese foreign policy involvement, including significant statements on Israel** indicates both bias and a requirement for recusal. Someone who stood up in the UN and previously accused Israel of things is not an unbiased arbiter. You should actually read what I say. It would be like if Trump got to be a judge in a criminal trial involving Biden. Absolutely absurd. As for the fact you responded to almost none of what I said, that’s par for the course by now. So I’ll ignore your irrelevant question in return.
I mean, I don’t want to make assertions or talk about things I don’t know anything about, which is why I can’t talk about the other points or judges since I haven’t done any research into it. But it is strange that OP claims Lebanon and Israel are at war when they are not… makes it harder to trust the rest of what’s contained in the post. And border skirmishes is not the same as war, as much as people want to hyperbolize it into that.
If you think Lebanon and Israel aren’t at war when they have been in a declared state of war for decades, that’s your choice. A state of war doesn’t mean they’re literally in the middle of battle, it means the states are actively hostile and have not signed a peace deal ending that active state of war. North Korea and South Korea are not killing each other right now, but absolutely everyone understands they’re in a state of war. It makes it hard to trust what you’re saying if you don’t understand this basic fact.
[удалено]
The egyptian crossing has always been open, its israel who bombed the shit out of it
[Egypt has closed the crossing](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/as-egypt-refuses-to-open-rafah-crossing-much-needed-humanitarian-aid-begins-to-rot/). Your comment is very 1984, "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia"-sounding.
As your link says, the IDF taking control from the Palestinians led to the closure of the border.
So Israel took control from Hamas, Egypt closed it, and Israel is the bad guy who must open what Egypt closed? Do people making this argument hear themselves? Are you seriously arguing Israel is the reason it’s closed because it doesn’t let Hamas run it…?
Why would they? Literally every time the world has told Israel to show restraint (such as when raiding universities, hospitals, refugee areas, schools, etc), what does Israel find? Mission objectives. Hamas targets. Tunnels. Munitions. Why would an increasingly successful unstoppable force yield to an immovable object? Because the UN said so? The UN which the Israeli government deems to be unfair? I feel as though the only pro Israel UN nations might be the US, UK, India, and maybe Ukraine.
Israels war is completely unsuccessful in its goal to destroy Hamas. Not only are most of the tunnels still intact, but Hamas has regained control over the north of Gaza again: [www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-battles-hamas-northern-gaza-jabaliya-regrouped-rafah-blinken-rcna151919](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-battles-hamas-northern-gaza-jabaliya-regrouped-rafah-blinken-rcna151919) And even the IDF believes Hamas will survive the war: [www.timesofisrael.com/report-idf-intel-assesses-that-hamas-will-survive-as-terror-group-post-war](http://www.timesofisrael.com/report-idf-intel-assesses-that-hamas-will-survive-as-terror-group-post-war)
[удалено]
>Sit back and let Hamas attack you as much as they like after they explicitly said they would I'm sure Israel will get right on that
How is Israeli civilian hostages should be retrieved from Gaza? One can say that Israeli isn’t there to take hostages, but it means nothing since they have a right to do so, and claim that right. And since there is zero probability that Hamas will complain with ICJ and ICJ ordered halt operations,there is no any legal way for Israel to retrieve hostages. Also, chief judge in ICJ from Lebanon and Lebanese, the same country that doesn’t have a peace with Israel and currently host Hamas and Hizbollah military (and not only military) who actively attacking Israel (more than several hundred rockets only in the last week). Yes, Hamas in Lebanon attacking as well. And chief judge from Lebanon. And this is only regarding hostages, while there are legal obligation of Israel to get people who carried 7/10 to legal responsibility. I am betting that history repeat itself and we’re witnessing new antisemitism, mainly from Muslim countries who slowly conquering demographically western civilization.
How about the UN court order Hamas to release ALL of the hostages. Dead or alive.
According to the other comments, this court order does include that requirement.
So, honest question, if Hamas doesn't apply to that order, why should Israel? That's like the court ordering a thief to return his stolen goods to me and ordering me to stop breaking into his house to get my stuff back. If the thief doesn't want to return my stuff, why should I stop trying to get them back??
Optimistically, it's a chicken and egg problem where neither side believes the other side will comply with the court ruling. Realistically, I doubt either side cares about this court's opinions, and knows that about the other side.
Honestly, what makes your believe that Israel would've invaded Gaza anyway if Hamas didn't take hostages or even returned all of them alive straight away?
IIRC, Bibi prioritized destroying Hamas over getting the hostages back. Oct 7 was pretty bad, even if Hamas didn't take any hostages; Israel would have wanted revenge just over the dead civilians.
In any case, if there were no hostages it would've been MUCH harder for Israel to justify the initial invasion and continued fight, even to USA.
> So, honest question, if Hamas doesn't apply to that order, why should Israel? One is a democratic state, the other is a terrorist organization. They aren't supposed to be held up to the same standard of scrutiny.
Ok, I heard that example. But people in a democratic state die as easily as people in terrorist state. Why should a democratic state be penalised for protecting their civilians?
For the same reason you hold the US and North Korea to different standards.
That didn't answer my question at all... Should South Korean leader be arrested for assassinating Kim Jong Un, for example?
The UN consider Hamas a terror org and the PA the rightful rulers of a Palestinian state thus they won't order Hamas to do anything. If they did that would give Hamas legitimacy and would mean that like the many Palestinians that are abducted by the Israeli state under "national security" the hostages in Gaza would not be hostages but prisoners which I think no one wants.
Wow how lucky were we that there wasn't a UN court to order the Allies to halt military operation in Berlin.
Securing the border with Gaza and rerouting all aid to heavily inspected warehouses in cyprus that are delivered to the gaza strip via the new pier seems like a great way to prevent terrorists in the strip from making rockets. Water pipes do not need to be metal and dual purpose goods that allow the creation or rockets. Plastic water pipes, sewers and gas lines work just fine.
International law is fundamentalish..
No surprise there now can everyone clear the college campuses and instead invest in the companies that they want to influence and attend shareholder meetings? Don't like fracking buy the stock. Don't like fossil fuels buy the stock. Don't like massive layoffs buy the stock and if enough of you buy you can put your own directors in to do as you please or even steer the thing into the ground if that is your pleasure.
Becauae its a load of bollix. Everybody is wrong or has an agenda. Amnnesty et all have presented their opinions on this. ICC prosecutor has requested warrant. ICJ had demanded to stop offensive and it seems more and nore likely they will find Israel guilty of Genocide. Biden had continously stated Israel is not doing enough in terms of protecting civillians and getting food in. Do we really have to pretend false truths, its just tiresome at this stage.
Unserious organization is unserious.
The UN has always been a joke and will continue to be one growing forward.
Was there a court order for Russia to stop its invasion???? The UN is useless.
Yes? The ICJ said that Russia is violating genocide convention. The ICC even issued arrest warrants against Putin.