Israel - Hamas war XVI

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

ICJ in its vast majority believe the case for genocide can be made. 

That isn't the same as saying it believes genocide is occurring. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

That isn't the same as saying it believes genocide is occurring. 

Which is exactly what I wrote, the case can be made, which is what the decision today was about, no? So no idea why you’re quoting me to say to me what I had said in the first place, as if it’s different than what you said.

[TheKitttenGuard]

14 minutes ago, Ran said:

Perfectly reasonable. "Ceasefire now" crowd will have to find some other thing to hang their hopes on, like Hamas's surrender.

So, Israel was commiting acts that could reasonable be view as Genocide and that was all fine?

The ICJ did not order a ceasefire, though the provision they state for Israel could be effectively create one, it did indicate merit which Israel and U.S, and several Western countries, state was meritless and frivolous when there was.

Edited January 26 by TheKitttenGuard

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

All those saying “no way we’re witnessing genocide live” are gonna have to find different ways of defending Israeli operations since the ICJ in its vast majority believe the case for genocide can be made. 

What you wrote was this. You seem to be saying that what the ICJ has said is a repudiation of anyone suggesting genocide isn't happening. That isn't what the ICJ have said, so I'm not quite sure why you wrote the first part of that sentence.

[karaddin]

She was saying that it's a repudiation of treating the suggestion 'that there might be genocide going on' obviously absurd, so arguments that it isn't going on need to actually argue that rather than just treating us as insane.

On the ruling - if Hamas were interested in a PR win with the potential to actually help their cause they'd comply with the ruling and release the hostages. I have a pretty poor opinion of them though, so I doubt they will.

[Rippounet]

The ICJ was not going to order a ceasefire because Netanyahu had said he wouldn't respect one. Since it's only a preliminary/interim ruling, the point was precisely to call for measures that would widely be found reasonable to put pressure on Israel and actually help the victims. Since the ICJ has no enforcement power, it had to demand something that Israeli allies could accept and use.
Genocide is too serious an accusation for non-discriminatory bombings alone to constitute the fact imho, so how Israel behaves in 2024 will determine what becomes of the procedure. Be prepared for the War on Terror crowd to endlessly dispute the numbers of excess mortality during the year, because in the end numbers will be the common yardstick for most people. If (/when) the excess deaths get into the 6-digit range, it'll become difficult to argue that Israel has not committed genocide ; though that will be a purely psychological threshold, of course.
I think it should be said that the ICJ having a genocide case may be enough to moderate Israel: even bona fide genocidal bastards are no fools, and know that it's best to avoid the worst ICJ decisions, so they will make sure the bare minimum is done to ensure the ICJ cannot give an unambiguous ruling. Some aid will get through, but never enough, some medical help will be there, but never enough, etc., the point being to kill countless thousands without the possibility of intent being confirmed. We'll get the "Hey, why would it be our fault that they go hungry and sick, hasn't anybody taught them how to fish?" or some variation of that oft-repeated slogan...
In the end, it won't be Israel that will be expected or called on to do much, because its war on the Palestinians will be taken as granted (a fait accompli), but everyone else. Ironically, the responsibility for Palestinian suffering will eventually be laid at the feet of those who say they care (the "islamo-leftists," as they're called in Israel or France), and Western indifference and cynicism will score another pyrrhic victory, a perfect echo of what has happened and will happen over a great many issues. We can be sure that everyone will be eager to think about something more confortable asap, so another crisis will get the spotlight soon - and the world has no shortage of those.

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

She was saying that it's a repudiation of treating the suggestion 'that there might be genocide going on' obviously absurd, so arguments that it isn't going on need to actually argue that rather than just treating us as insane.

Unfortunately, we'll have to wait like 2 decades to have our stance treated reasonably rationally by those who call it ridiculous now.

I mean, we're one apartheid and a genocide past the point that and it didn't change much, or rather: not enough. We can all condemn it once the victims' cause is no longer so impactful on the opressor.

If there will be significantly less palestinians living there, we can maybe even have a one-state solution implemented.

Edited January 26 by Daeron the Daring

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

On the ruling - if Hamas were interested in a PR win with the potential to actually help their cause they'd comply with the ruling and release the hostages. I have a pretty poor opinion of them though, so I doubt they will.

Maybe, but like I've said before it's reasonable to believe they don't want some of the horror stories to get out. We've heard some pretty bad things from the limited comments of the hostages already released and the ones still held, assuming they're alive, are going to be in bad shape.

32 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The ICJ was not going to order a ceasefire because Netanyahu had said he wouldn't respect one. 

Not to dismiss the rest of your post, but neither will Hamas. They've said a ceasefire only applies to Israel.

28 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

we can maybe even have a one-state solution implemented.

Never going to happen and it would be a disastrous idea. There has to be two states. Maybe as many as four. But a one state solution will just lead to more chaos. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Maybe, but like I've said before it's reasonable to believe they don't want some of the horror stories to get out. We've heard some pretty bad things from the limited comments of the hostages already released and the ones still held, assuming they're alive, are going to be in bad shape.

 

I think it was the secretary of state who said that Hamas probably doesn't want to release the remaining women because they've been raped and tortured, that the ceasefire may have fallen apart for that reason. 

An assumption, but an educated one after reading and listening to those who have been freed so far.

[Rippounet]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Not to dismiss the rest of your post, but neither will Hamas. They've said a ceasefire only applies to Israel.

I don't give a flying fuck about Hamas.

[Kyoshi]

we can try to "intellectualise" this all we want, but whatever side you stand on, you can't deny this was a loss for israel. they stand accused of genocide. the ruling today literally means they are on trial for genocide. surely that means something; hopefully it means israel is PR-conscious enough to at least attempt redemption. but i honestly have no faith in them.

Edited January 26 by Kyoshi

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

I don't give a flying fuck about Hamas.

Well, of course not, they bear no responsibilities at all.

3 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Trying to discuss ceasefire and peace with anyone framing this conflict as a religious war would probably be very difficult.

Hamas knows all about that, certainly. But mistating what 'Amalek' refers to and what it means in modern Israeli culture is not helpful. Yair Rosenberg's recent piece in The Atlantic on how people have misstated or deliberately placed out of context remarks is a useful thing to read, not least since it appears that the New York Times has corrected at least two of their own uses of the quotes he cited.

[SaffronLady]

Just now, Ran said:

 mistating what 'Amalek' refers to 

Apologia by the Israel Democracy Institute? Fine, so long as it doesn't repeat "Hamas" in every paragraph.

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, SaffronLady said:

Apologia by the Israel Democracy Institute? Fine, so long as it doesn't repeat "Hamas" in every paragraph.

If you want to dispute the claims, dispute them. You'll find the same details from Rosenberg in The Atlantic, details that have led to corrections among major media.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

48 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

I think it was the secretary of state who said that Hamas probably doesn't want to release the remaining women because they've been raped and tortured, that the ceasefire may have fallen apart for that reason. 

An assumption, but an educated one after reading and listening to those who have been freed so far.

And there's also a worry that many of them could be pregnant. 

42 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I don't give a flying fuck about Hamas.

Then you don't care about a path to lasting peace either.

[Ran]

Evidence is that there's many more employees who are militants or affiliated with them, but didn't necessarily take part in the attack.

[SaffronLady]

5 minutes ago, Ran said:

If you want to dispute the claims, dispute them. You'll find the same details from Rosenberg in The Atlantic, details that have led to corrections among major media.

After reading through the article, I believe most Israeli spokespeople could benefit from such a controlled, collected delivery of their point that sparingly uses the word Hamas.

Not that words could undo the fact there are at least 20 dead Palestinians to every dead Israeli since Oct 7th. And I actually like Erdan's little stunts in the UN, he's funny in his own way.

[Ran]

Hamas celebrates every death as martyrdom. There are increasing protests in Khan Younis against Hamas, not coincidentally.

And more on UNRWA,

 

[Kalbear]

41 minutes ago, Ran said:

Well, of course not, they bear no responsibilities at all.

Hamas knows all about that, certainly. But mistating what 'Amalek' refers to and what it means in modern Israeli culture is not helpful. Yair Rosenberg's recent piece in The Atlantic on how people have misstated or deliberately placed out of context remarks is a useful thing to read, not least since it appears that the New York Times has corrected at least two of their own uses of the quotes he cited.

So from that idi piece you get this - again, an Israeli scholar saying what it actually means:

Quote

When persons who are at home in Jewish culture hear the name “Amalek” they do not hear a call for annihilation, but only the echo of a villain who lived thousands of years ago, a foe who can no longer be identified today and has no physical descendants, but only ideological heirs.

How is this not calling for the genocide of that group? It is literally saying that they are talking about a group that no longer exists. I fail to see the difference here.

ETA - I think the above also ignores that this specific reference has been used repeatedly by far right Israelis to encourage more killing of Palestinians and it is just one example of some of the things said by Israeli leadership. I get the point that this is also the reference in the Holocaust museum but I think context is important here as well as prior art.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/

Edited January 26 by Kalbear

[TheKitttenGuard]

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

Well, of course not, they bear no responsibilities at all.

Hamas knows all about that, certainly. But mistating what 'Amalek' refers to and what it means in modern Israeli culture is not helpful. Yair Rosenberg's recent piece in The Atlantic on how people have misstated or deliberately placed out of context remarks is a useful thing to read, not least since it appears that the New York Times has corrected at least two of their own uses of the quotes he cited.

Always enjoy we have seek nuance out of statements from Israel when every statement from Palestinians are to be taken as on the face facts.

Reviewing the article, the author handwave a statement or so on the emotions of the speaker. There is also a presumption that Israel is differentiating between the two and that is hard to make when Israel has been targetting a lot Palestinian Civil Society. Also, when Israel wants to state how many of Hamas fighters been killed, it has been stated they have been effectively declare all males of a certain age to be Hamas.

Quote

for one thing, a nonhuman animal never executed a grandmother in her home and then uploaded the snuff film to her Facebook page

Honestly this commentary here really showing the author's bias here. Not disputing the fact (which I never done) of the matter. It is still one of a dehumanization and make me question how Objective this analysis to be.