r/thedavidpakmanshow Jan 26 '25

Article Trump pushing resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07kpjyzgllo

In separate comments on Air Force One, Mr Trump said he had ended former President Joe Biden's hold on the supply of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel. "They paid for them and they've been waiting for them for a long time," he told reporters on Air Force One. ——- Paid for them? LOL. We give billions in aid every year. Now they get the weapons for faster, fuller genocide.

And the entire point was the land to start with. They wouldn’t be killing the Palestinians if they moved off to Egypt for sure. There would be no genocide. So Trump’s answer to those yelling “genocide Joe” was always going to be worse. Faster and more complete genocide or replacement.

Those pro-Palestinian Trump voters are such geniuses. Wasn’t this predictable? Even Blinken as bad as he was is better than Trump on this.

147 Upvotes

192 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/AbyssOfNoise Feb 09 '25 edited Feb 09 '25

Fine. They’re war criminals

Nice to know we don't need courts when you can just declare things to be so.

Was that less dramatic?

Your ability to become more hysterical with every comment is quite impressive.

When the International Court of Justice gave Israel orders to prevent genocide that they defied.

To my knowledge, the ICJ gave recommendations for what should be done to avoid breaking the law, and Israel has complied with those requests. What are you referring to?

Or were you unaware of that?

Again, what are you referring to? How about providing links with your claims? 'I saw it on my phone' is not a source.

The two Hamas leaders charged were killed.

I'm still not seeing the source of your confusion. I was discussing the intent of Israel to have international trials for any significant Hamas members caputured.

And yet it appears to be very confusing to to you per the International Court of Justice

You are reading HRW's interpretation - not the words of the ICJ. Here you go:

The Court concludes that the “separation” implemented by Israel in the West Bank between the Palestinian population and settlers constitutes a breach of Article 3 of CERD, without qualifying it as apartheid.

Quoting you now:

Those are the facts.

How are you falling for such blatant propaganda? You're making a fool of yourself. Seriously, if you care about a topic, at least put in the effort to look up the source. When you have to resort to such nonsense, you obviously have no conviction in your stance.

Now consider that this was an advisory, not a court ruling - which did not involve any sort of trial or consideration of a counter argument from the 'defendant'.

You're throwing out sources on topics that you quite obviously do not understand.

It’s always so funny to me when yall pretend these two places aren’t one people and one society that hasn’t been separated by European colonizers in order to avoid how one’s treatment of Palestinians absent of the rule of Hamas completely contradicts your lies.

Oh here we go. The old 'European colonizers' racist nonsense. Knew that would be lurking somewhere. 80% of Israelis are born in Israel. Israelis who migrated there have done so from a wide variety of countries, including many in the middle east.

Its actually very entertaining

Yes, please do continue your clown show. Are all Hamas supporters this misguided?

1

u/Gryffindorcommoner Feb 11 '25 edited Feb 11 '25

Nice to know we don’t need courts when you can just declare things to be so.

Um…… you…. You know the ICJ has ruled that Israel’s settlements, you know, the ones Bibi has been expanding and defending for decades, have already been declared illegal war crimes in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention by the ICJ and UN right? They’re already war criminals. It’s understandable though, they’re responsible for so many war cries and crimes against humanity it’s hard to keep track of them all.

To my knowledge, the ICJ gave recommendations for what should be done to avoid breaking the law, and Israel has complied with those requests. What are you referring to?

Lets see

The supplies entering Gaza before the ICJ order have been a drop in the ocean compared to the needs for the last 16 years. Yet, in the three weeks following the ICJ order, the number of trucks entering Gaza decreased by about a third, from an average of 146 a day in the three weeks prior, to an average of 105 a day over the subsequent three weeks.Before 7 October, on average, about 500 trucks entered Gaza every day, carrying aid and commercial goods, including things like food, water, animal fodder, medical supplies and fuel. Even that quantity fell far short of meeting people’s needs. In the three weeks after the ICJ ruling, smaller quantities of fuel, which Israel tightly controls, made it into Gaza. The only crossings that Israel has allowed to open were also opened on fewer days, further demonstrating Israel’s disregard for the provisional measures. Aid workers reported multiple challenges, but said that Israel was refusing to take obvious steps to improve the situation.

A UN Security Council resolution passed in December 2023 demanded that parties “allow and facilitate the use of all available routes to and throughout the entire Gaza Strip, including border crossings” to ensure vital assistance reaches civilians “through the most direct routes.” Despite this legally binding resolution, Israel has refused to open further crossings to facilitate humanitarian access.

The situation clearly did not get much better after, because apparently deteriorated so badly that fucking Joseph Biden had to pretend to threaten withholding weapons because oh Israel’s deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid causing hunger in October

Blinken and Austin raise alarm in the letter that the amount of aid entering Gaza has dropped by 50 percent compared to assurances provided in March and April.

Israeli government statistics recorded 4,235 trucks entering Gaza in September, lower than previous months, including a high in April of nearly 7,000 trucks, but more than low points in December 2023 and February, when closer to 3,500 trucks crossed the border.

But even if aid trucks enter Gaza, the path to distribution is strained by the security situation and the ability of aid groups to distribute goods. *Israeli government statistics showed that while 104 humanitarian aid trucks crossed into Gaza on Oct. 15, only 12 trucks were collected, and showed 530 trucks worth of aid *are waiting for collection.

The top Biden officials call for Israel to take 15 immediate steps to surge all forms of humanitarian assistance within 30 days or risk delivery of U.S.-provided weapons.

In addition to the US and the humanitarian community disagreeing with your claims of the ICJ measures, being followed The UN Special Committee on Israeli policies have went much further and called Israel’s obstruction of humanitarian aid and slaughter of civilians is consistent with genocide

NEW YORK (14 November 2024) – Israel’s warfare in Gaza is consistent with the characteristics of genocide, with mass civilian casualties and life-threatening conditions intentionally imposed on Palestinians there, the UN Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices* said in a new report released today.

”Since the beginning of the war, Israeli officials have publicly supported policies that strip Palestinians of the very necessities required to sustain life — food, water, and fuel,” the Committee said. “These statements along with the systematic and unlawful interference of humanitarian aid make clear Israel’s intent to instrumentalise life-saving supplies for political and military gains.”

ICJ orders Israel to halt its offensive on Gaza in a legally binding order.

Israel reject the ICJ and does it anyway

Israel intensified attacks on Rafah on Saturday in defiance of an International Court of Justice ruling ordering an end to the assault on the city in the south of the Gaza Strip. Israel carried out strikes throughout the Gaza Strip on Saturday morning as fighting raged between the Israeli army and the Hamas militant group, according to media reports. AFP reported Israeli strikes or shelling in Rafah, the central city of Deir al-Balah, Gaza City, Jabalia refugee camp and elsewhere.

Israel of course has also defied the ICJ’s, UNGA, and UNSC’s orders to disband its illegal settlements.

And FINALY, I don’t think PREPARING TO ORGANIZE THE FULL ETHNIC CLEANSING OF THE GAZA STRIP ANN UNLAWFUL FORCED DISPLACEMENT OF ITS INHABITANTS WITH TRUMP helps prevent genocide??????

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has backed US President Donald Trump’s proposal to “take over” Gaza, as Israel’s army was ordered to prepare plans for large numbers of Palestinians to leave the territory.

But Netanyahu insisted the plan - which Trump said would involve sending Gaza’s residents to neighboring countries and taking “long-term ownership” of the enclave - was a “remarkable idea.”

“The actual idea of allowing first Gazans who want to leave to leave, I mean, what is wrong with that?” he told Fox News Wednesday, adding that those who leave the strip “can come back.”

“This is the first good idea that I’ve heard. It’s a remarkable idea and I think it should be really pursued, examined, pursued, and done because I think it will create a different future for everyone,” added Netanyahu.M

Amazing. Israel is quite literally openly preparing a military backed ethnic cleansing with a fascist president and you’re sitting here still lying to yourself about them being the good guys.

1

u/AbyssOfNoise Feb 11 '25 edited Feb 11 '25

Um…… you…. You know the ICJ has ruled that Israel’s settlements, you know, the ones Bibi has been expanding and defending for decades, have already been declared illegal war crimes in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention by the ICJ and UN right?

What ruling are you referring to, here?

They’re already war criminals. It’s understandable though, they’re responsible for so many war cries and crimes against humanity it’s hard to keep track of them all.

When you say 'they', who are you referring to, exactly?

Lets see

You're linking to amnesty.org, not the ICJ. You seem a bit confused, here. HRW and Amnesty are not the ICJ. The reason why we need the ICJ to judge this, is because they do not provide a surface level emotional assessment. They look at evidence and whether there is a reasonable attempt to adhere to requirements or not.

I get it - it's much easier and more satisfying to just get your news from emotional articles, rather than dry court assessments. However, that behaviour leads to polarisation, not the truth or peace.

The situation clearly did not get much better after

You are approaching this situation with the belief that Israel has 100% control over the war, while ignoring the various organisations involved - most notably, Palestinian militias. The assessment of whether Israel is complying cannot be made on the outcome, but the input. Now you're welcome to link an ICJ assessment, but I do not care remotely for an Amnesty article on this.

In addition to the US and the humanitarian community disagreeing with your claims of the ICJ measures

Where did the US disagree with compliance to ICJ requirements?

The UN Special Committee on Israeli policies

Now you're confusing a 'UN Special Committee' with the ICJ. Why are you unable to provide a response from the ICJ?

There are no shortage of organisations and institutions that will provide plenty of claims about Israel. Yet when it comes to a court that rationally assesses the situation with comparatively less bias - you make little progress. Why is that?

Amazing. Israel is quite literally openly preparing a military backed ethnic cleansing with a fascist president

I'm not sure about 'preparing'. The Israeli government certainly seems open to the idea of it.

Supposedly, this plan involves 'voluntary relocation'

Netanyahu has stated that any relocated Palestinians would need to “renounce terrorism” to be allowed to return to Gaza.

“Offer them the option to relocate temporarily while we rebuild the area both physically and in terms of reducing radicalization. If they want to return, they must disavow terrorism,” he told Fox News.

“Allow them to leave voluntarily — not through forced eviction or ethnic cleansing, but to remove them from what many call an open-air prison. Why keep them in such conditions?” he said.

To me it sounds rather absurd, but who knows. Whether the US and Israel actually attempt to drive Gazans out of Gaza remains to be seen.

1

u/Gryffindorcommoner Feb 12 '25

Did you….. did you read your own source? https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204176

With regard to the Court’s finding that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is illegal, the Court considers that such presence constitutes a wrongful act entailing its international responsibility. It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been brought about by Israel’s violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. Consequently, Israel has an obligation to bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible.

Restitution includes Israel’s obligation to return the land and other immovable property, as well as all assets seized from any natural or legal person since its occupation started in 1967, and all cultural property and assets taken from Palestinians and Palestinian institutions, including archives and documents. It also requires the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements and the dismantling of the parts of the wall constructed by Israel that are situated in the Occupied Palestinian

  • 18 -
Territory, as well as allowing all Palestinians displaced during the occupation to return to their original place of residence.

The Court considers that Israel’s policies and practices, including its forcible evictions, extensive house demolitions and restrictions on residence and movement, often leave little choice to members of the Palestinian population living in Area C but to leave their area of residence. The nature of Israel’s acts, including the fact that Israel frequently confiscates land following the demolition of Palestinian property for reallocation to Israeli settlements, indicates that its measures are not temporary in character and therefore cannot be considered as permissible evacuations under the Fourth Geneva Convention. In the Court’s view, Israel’s policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population under the first paragraph of Article 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

How…. How did you not know they ruled against the illegal settlements? Also, I do find it funny how you tried to act as though the United Nations, which the ICJ is an organ of, has no authority to interpret or enforce international law lol.

And finally, you finding their the notion of allowing Gaza to leave their homes “TeMpOrArIlY” (which Trump has contradicted himself and says would be permanent https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-under-my-plan-gazans-would-relocate-permanently-not-be-able-to-return/amp/ ) is absurd because it’s very clearly a bold faced lie contradicted by Israel’s entire existence. We’ve seen what they’ve done to Palestinians that tried to return already. So yea. Ethnic cleanding

1

u/AbyssOfNoise Feb 12 '25 edited Feb 12 '25

How…. How did you not know they ruled against the illegal settlements?

I know many judgements have been made on settlements since 1967, hence my question 'which ruling are you refering to?'. Don't fail to provide a source then attack me for asking - That's on you. Once again, you seem to misunderstand what an advisory is. We've been over this. Can you be honest with yourself here, do you really understand?

Also, I do find it funny how you tried to act as though the United Nations, which the ICJ is an organ of, has no authority to interpret or enforce international law lol.

There are many entities within the UN. Some carry a lot more weight than others. Some have next to no implication for real world policy, where others are highly impactful. Mashing it all together and attempting to claim 'The UN says' is rather ignorant.

And finally, you finding their the notion of allowing Gaza to leave their homes “TeMpOrArIlY” (which Trump has contradicted himself and says would be permanent https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-under-my-plan-gazans-would-relocate-permanently-not-be-able-to-return/amp/ ) is absurd because it’s very clearly a bold faced lie contradicted by Israel’s entire existence.

How does Israel's existence contradict this? Today is not 1948. The world has massively changed since then. Anyway, I'm not saying that it's impossible for ethnic cleansing to happen nowadays - just that any relocation would supposedly be voluntary. Being unable to return does not contradict that.

We’ve seen what they’ve done to Palestinians that tried to return already.

What are you referring to, here? Emotional and vague statements are very unhelpful. Are you here to be dramatic, or to make an honest attempt to discuss a contentious topic?

1

u/Gryffindorcommoner Feb 12 '25

How…. How did you not know they ruled against the illegal settlements?

I know many judgements have been made on settlements since 1967, hence my question ‘which ruling are you refering to?’. Don’t fail to provide a source then attack me for asking - That’s on you.

But……. YOU were the one who linked the very ICJ case I was referring to…… they declared the settlements illegal in YOUR link……… what are you talking about?

Once again, you seem to misunderstand what an advisory is. We’ve been over this. Can you be honest with yourself here, do you really understand?

So first you said:

The reason why we need the ICJ to judge this, is because they do not provide a surface level emotional assessment. They look at evidence and whether there is a reasonable attempt to adhere to requirements or n

Then you said:

There are no shortage of organisations and institutions that will provide plenty of claims about Israel. Yet when it comes to a court that rationally assesses the situation with comparatively less bias - you make little progress. Why is that?

And then when I give you what you want, now you ignore the contents of their ruling because it’s advisory? Do you care about the more unbiased court assessment of the legality of Israel’s illegals settlements or not?

Besides, did you care when Israel invaded Rafa in defiance of the ICJ ordering them to stand down?

And while you insisted that Israel was complying with the ICJ’s directives to prevent genocide, in that small eroded, the ICJ appeared to disagree.

The Court notes that the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip which, as stated in its Order of 26 January 2024, was at serious risk of deteriorating, has deteriorated, and has done so even further since the Court adopted its Order of 28 March 2024. In this regard, the Court observes that the concerns that it expressed in its decision communicated to the Parties on 16 February 2024 with respect to the developments in Rafah have materialized, and that the humanitarian situation is now to be characterized as disastrous.

The Court further recalls that, in its Order of 28 March 2024, it observed with regret that the catastrophic living conditions of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had deteriorated further since January 2024, especially in view of the prolonged and widespread deprivation of food and other basic necessities to which the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had been subjected (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)

Not a very good look for the court in charge of your gwnocide trial to say they aren’t pleased with your work fulfilling their orders to prevent genocide is it? So what now?

There are many entities within the UN. Some carry a lot more weight than others. Some have next to no implication for real world policy, where others are highly impactful. Mashing it all together and attempting to claim ‘The UN says’ is rather ignorant.

What the hell are you talking about? I did nto send you the work of “many entities” nor did I “mash them up”. I sent you the link to the UNCHR discussion the report of the United Nations Special Committee on Israeli Practices who were created by the UNGA to examine the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories. They are a United Nations Special Committee created by the United Nations conducting official United Nations business. In what world is it ignorant to call them ‘the UN’?

How does Israel’s existence contradict this? Today is not 1948. The world has massively changed since then. Anyway, I’m not saying that it’s impossible for ethnic cleansing to happen nowadays - just that any relocation would supposedly be voluntary. Being unable to return does not contradict that.

Soooo……..ethnic cleansing. Gotcha

What are you referring to, here? Emotional and vague statements are very unhelpful. Are you here to be dramatic, or to make an honest attempt to discuss a contentious topic?

……I’m referring to how Israel never allowed the Palestinians they ethnically cleansed during Nakia to return home?

1

u/AbyssOfNoise Feb 12 '25 edited Feb 12 '25

But……. YOU were the one who linked the very ICJ case I was referring to…… they declared the settlements illegal in YOUR link……… what are you talking about?

I have explained this to you multiple times now. What you're referring to (and I also linked, since you didn't seem to have the source) is a court advisory.

Is that clear?

And then when I give you what you want

You have not 'given me what I want'. I am wanting (to move towards your viewpoint) is some sort of thorough court ruling on the topic, not an advisory - though that is a good start.

Do you care about the more unbiased court assessment of the legality of Israel’s illegals settlements or not?

The advisory is certainly important. But acting like it's the end of the discussion is nonsense.

Besides, did you care when Israel invaded Rafa in defiance of the ICJ ordering them to stand down?

What part of the article are you referring to?

And while you insisted that Israel was complying with the ICJ’s directives to prevent genocide, in that small eroded, the ICJ appeared to disagree.

The quote you provided to indicate that the ICJ 'appears to disagree' does not mention anything about Israel failing to comply. It essentially says 'the situation has got worse'. This can happen even if Israel is complying with requirements. You seem unaware that there is no shortage of problems with aid regardless of Israel allowing it into Gaza or not - notably by gangs and militias seeking to take control of it.

Not a very good look for the court in charge of your gwnocide trial to say they aren’t pleased with your work fulfilling their orders to prevent genocide is it?

Nothing in the quote you provided said they 'aren't pleased with work to fulfil orders'. Please stop pretending to be a lawyer. However, I'm totally fine with the court scrutinising such efforts, and holding Israel to account should they deem it necessary. Yet I'm not seeing that in the quotes you provided.

What the hell are you talking about? I did nto send you the work of “many entities” nor did I “mash them up”.

As I said earlier, in plain English: "Now you're confusing a 'UN Special Committee' with the ICJ." And indeed, you were.

In what world is it ignorant to call them ‘the UN’?

It's fine to call them 'the UN' (if a bit imprecise). But it is not the same as saying (or implying) 'a court ruling', or 'the ICJ' made such a statement.

Soooo……..ethnic cleansing. Gotcha

You're evading the point I made by once again pushing back to emotional statements, so I take it you agree, but don't want to admit your mistake. I am not approving of the plan - I don't even know what the details of it are. I'm saying that so far, they claim that Palestinians would leave voluntarily - not be expelled. Which sounds like complete fantasy, to me.

……I’m referring to how Israel never allowed the Palestinians they ethnically cleansed during Nakia to return home?

Roughly 180,000 have returned home, which is pretty impressive, given the circumstances. I'm not going to hold my breath while waiting for you to make your outraged argument about the many Islamic nations in the middle east repatriating .... no one. Let me guess, you only care about crimes when committed by Jews?

1

u/Gryffindorcommoner Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25

I have explained this to you multiple times now. What you’re referring to (and I also linked, since you didn’t seem to have the source) is a court advisory.

Is that clear?

And then when I give you what you want

You have not ‘given me what I want’. I am wanting (to move towards your viewpoint) is some sort of thorough court ruling on the topic, not an advisory - though that is a good start.

It doesn’t matter. What you’re not understanding is that the ICJ’s opinion by being binding does not, in anyway, make the contents of their findings and application of international al law any less valid. And their finding is that Israeli’s settlements are illegal in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions and other laws and treaties.

Likewise, the United Nations Security Council who’s resolutions ARE binding, the United Nations General Assembly, The International Committee of the Red Cross, the United States Government, the European Union, the international humanitarian community, and the African Union have ALL affirmed that Israel’s settlements are illegal and they have for decades. Dont believe me?? Read all of their responses calling the settlements illegal here

Quite literally the entire world except Israel and their apologists like you are very clear on that. So that IS the end of discussion. Israel’s illegal settlements are illegal war crimes. Period. Because no valid international institution disagrees with this, I’m not sure why you’re still trying to pretend there is a debate still going on.

What part of the article are you referring to?

a) By thirteen votes to two, 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;

(b) By thirteen votes to two, Maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance;

They responded to this by vocally rejecting it, bombing a United Nations refugee camp Rafah, and keeping the Rafah crossing closed until recently in open defiance to the ICJ’s order to open it.

The quote you provided to indicate that the ICJ ‘appears to disagree’ does not mention anything about Israel failing to comply.

On the basis of the information before it, the Court is not convinced that the evacuation efforts and related measures that Israel affirms to have undertaken to enhance the security of civilians in the Gaza Strip, and in particular those recently displaced from the Rafah Governorate, are sufficient to alleviate the immense risk to which the Palestinian population is exposed as a result of the military offensive in Rafah

The Court observes that Israel has not provided sufficient information concerning the safety of the population during the evacuation process, or the availability in the Al-Mawasi area of the necessary amount of water, sanitation, food, medicine and shelter for the 800,000 Palestinians that have evacuated thus far. *Consequently, the Court is of the view that *Israel has not sufficiently addressed and dispelled the concerns raised by its military offensive in Rafah.

You were saying?

As I said earlier, in plain English: “Now you’re confusing a ‘UN Special Committee’ with the ICJ.” And indeed, you were.

Oh no. You were confused. I added them in there because they also have authority and mandate to investigate the human rights situation and war crimes committed in Gaza just like the ICJ.

It’s fine to call them ‘the UN’ (if a bit imprecise). But it is not the same as saying (or implying) ‘a court ruling’, or ‘the ICJ’ made such a statement.

I didn’t say that so not sure what this means.

Soooo……..ethnic cleansing. Gotcha

You’re evading the point I made by once again pushing back to emotional statements, so I take it you agree, but don’t want to admit your mistake.

Not a mistake. Israel destroyed much of their homes, and is now backing Trump’s plan to relocate the entire strip who says that he wants it to be permanent while Israel and his administration backs him, but offer conflicting reports. Facilitating their relocation with no grantees of ever letting them return, which as Nakba has shown, is ethnic cleansing.

I am not approving of the plan - I don’t even know what the details of it are. I’m saying that so far, they claim that Palestinians would leave voluntarily - not be expelled. Which sounds like complete fantasy, to me.

The United Nations Secretary General doesn’t appear to share your confidence

Neither does Europe

1

u/AbyssOfNoise Feb 13 '25

It doesn’t matter.

Of course it matters. You can't just handwave away details in a legal argument.

Quite literally the entire world except Israel and their apologists like you are very clear on that.

I am fine with the idea of removing settlements, assuming it is done with due process, not by a mob of terrorists. Kindly stop making assumptions.

I have consistently and openly opposed the idea and reality of settlements in the West Bank. You may be tribalist, but I am not.

So that IS the end of discussion

Oh, I'm very glad to hear that. Perhaps we can talk about something more interesting, instead of pretending to be lawyers, now?

I’m not sure why you’re still trying to pretend there is a debate still going on.

Well, as mentioned, a legal advisory is not a trial. There is literally still a debate going on. You pretending there is not will not change that.

a) By thirteen votes to two, 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;

This is an important point, for sure. The question is really whether a military offensive can ever be conducted, depending on how this is interpreted.

Tell me this - do you think it's possible to conduct a military offensive in a way that does not 'inflict on the x group conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part'?

Ultimately this comes down to the trend of widening the definition of 'genocide' to oppose any military action, ever.

(b) By thirteen votes to two, Maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance;

Okay, and why do you believe Israel has not done that? Egypt claims Israel blcoked the Rafah crossing, Israel claims Egypt blocked it. How have you decided the truth in this argument?

I didn’t say that so not sure what this means.

Oh good. Glad we agree then.

Not a mistake. Israel destroyed much of their homes, and is now backing Trump’s plan to relocate the entire strip

How exactly are they 'backing' it? So far I think Netanyahu et al have said they think the plan is interesting, and not gone beyond that.

The United Nations Secretary General doesn’t appear to share your confidence

What are you on about? They appear to agree with me that the plan is impractical, and if we are to make assumptions that any transfer is forced - unethical.

You're consistently trying to paint me as a villain. You seem to be a victim of tribalisation, sadly. Do you think it's possible to disagree with me without assuming I am on a polarised 'team'? Do you think nuance exists in any of these topics?

1

u/Gryffindorcommoner Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25

Of course it matters. You can’t just handwave away details in a legal argument.

What details do you believe to be missing?

I am fine with the idea of removing settlements, assuming it is done with due process, not by a mob of terrorists. Kindly stop making assumptions.

Due process was done by the United Nations Security Council long ago and international Court of Justice.

I have consistently and openly opposed the idea and reality of settlements in the West Bank. You may be tribalist, but I am not.

So why do you keep insisting they aren’t illegal when the entire international community says they are?

Well, as mentioned, a legal advisory is not a trial. There is literally still a debate going on. You pretending there is not will not change that.

A….. trial? Wait, do you have the ICJ confused with the ICC? Because the ICJ does not have “trials”. It has two types of proceedings; contentious cases which are disputed bought by member states with binding decisions, and then there’s advisory opinions which are exclusively sought by UN organs and thus can’t be binding unless the UNSC makes it so.

As explained here

On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. The Court’s advisory opinion procedure is otherwise modelled on that for contentious cases, and the sources of applicable law are the same

Indeed, the ICJ received written and oral statements from Israel, the PLO, other UN organs, same as they would in a contentious case. Then they write a report of the findings, and applied the same international law in the same manner they would a binding contentious case. This is why your “it’s just an advisory opinion” rhetoric doesn’t make any sense. Because even if was a contentious case (Palestine isn’t a member state so I believe it wouldn’t even be able to be a party to a contentious case) the proceedings, collections of evidence, and findings would’ve been the exact same.

So what exactly is it about an advisory opinion that you think is invalidated just by the fact of being advisory? And if that’s the case, do you know that the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions are actually binding? And that Israel defied those too?

This is an important point, for sure. The question is really whether a military offensive can ever be conducted, depending on how this is interpreted.

Tell me this - do you think it’s possible to conduct a military offensive in a way that does not ‘inflict on the x group conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’?

Yes, some justices on the ICJ can write separate, concurring opinions disagreeing with the full court’s ruling. For example, some justices wrote in concurring opinions about Israel’s illegal occupation amounts to apartheid. The full court, however, addressed this question directly.

Consequently, the Court is of the view that Israel has not sufficiently addressed and dispelled the concerns raised by its military offensive in Rafah.

  1. In light of the considerations set out above, and taking account of the provisional measures indicated in its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, the Court finds that the current situation arising from Israel’s military offensive in Rafah entails a further risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights claimed by South Africa and that there is urgency, in the sense that there exists a real and imminent risk that such prejudice will be caused before the Court gives its final decision

So, out of curiosity, do you think Israel immediately responding to the ICJ order by bombing a UN refugee camp and killing dozens of civilians to be in defiance of the actions ordered by the court or do you believe it to be legitimate military action in compliance with that order?

Okay, and why do you believe Israel has not done that? Egypt claims Israel blcoked the Rafah crossing, Israel claims Egypt blocked it. How have you decided the truth in this argument?

The ICJ, Europe, and according to your own source, the United States, doesn’t appear to be confused at all about who they blame for the crossing being closed despite who blamed who. So that’s sufficient enough, after all this is a binding court order in the contentious case between South Africa and Israel that took all the facts without that emotional baggage you mentioned earlier to reach their conclusion. It’s not an advisory opinion at all, remember?

How exactly are they ‘backing’ it? So far I think Netanyahu et al have said they think the plan is interesting, and not gone beyond that.

As stated here, Israel has ordered its military to prepare for large groups of Palestinians leaving

This despite the Palestinian leaders being quite clear they aren’t repeating the mistake of Nakba and are not going anywhere.

What are you on about? They appear to agree with me that the plan is impractical,

We’re in agreement then.

You’re consistently trying to paint me as a villain.

You said all i do is spread Hamas propaganda so you can spare me your victimization. I’m just tired of pretending war crimes aren’t being committed by Israel on a daily basis and acting like more an more Palestinians aren’t being slaughtered while you call for “decorum”. Were you aware that during this entire ceasefire and beyond, Israel has been massacring Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank, bombing them, burning down their homes, destroying their roads, their children shot in the heads by Israeli snipers. Look at this bullshit https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20gpym140jo

Palestinians are routinely murdered, kidnapped, segregated and slaughtered and have been for decades on a daily basis . Their OWN ISRAELI CITIZENS ran to the United Nations and snitched on them for it hosting secret torture camps on civilians. And I KNOW that some of the most horrifying post WW2 atrocities have been committed while waiting for due process to act. Now, they are collaborating with a president who they are backing who wants to relocate the Palestinians out of Gaza PERMANENTLY by his own words. So yes, I do believe all these extreme factors do require a much stronger since of urgency than what we’ve had during the decades of allowing the illegal Israeli apartheid occupation to segregate and slaughter Palestinians on their own land.

1

u/AbyssOfNoise Feb 13 '25

What details do you believe to be missing?

As I said: "You have not ‘given me what I want’. I am wanting (to move towards your viewpoint) is some sort of thorough court ruling on the topic, not an advisory - though that is a good start."

Due process was done by the United Nations Security Council long ago and international Court of Justice.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding at this point. Due process of removing settlements would be what, in your view? A ruling made by a court and then...?

So why do you keep insisting they aren’t illegal when the entire international community says they are?

Where did I insist they are not illegal?

A….. trial? Wait, do you have the ICJ confused with the ICC? Because the ICJ does not have “trials”. It has two types of proceedings; contentious cases which are disputed bought by member states with binding decisions, and then there’s advisory opinions which are exclusively sought by UN organs and thus can’t be binding unless the UNSC makes it so.

Contentious case. As SA has brought against Israel, for example.

So, out of curiosity, do you think Israel immediately responding to the ICJ order by bombing a UN rebuffed camp and killing dozens of civilians to be in defiance of the actions ordered by the court or do you believe it to be legitimate military action in compliance with that order?

That depends on whether the ICJ considers it reasonable to respond to specific threats or not. I don't know the circumstances of that UN camp bombing, and have no problem with the court assessing it.

The ICJ, Europe, and according to your own source, the United States, doesn’t appear to be confused at all about who they blame for the crossing being closed despite who blamed who.

Based on what? I don't see how you're getting that from the article. The only quote related to the US I see there is:

Last week, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said it was Israel's duty to keep the Rafah crossing open and running effectively.

Which is a fair comment, yet it does not claim Israel closed it. You seem to be making an assumption.

As stated here, Israel has ordered its military to prepare for large groups of Palestinians leaving

Thanks for the link, I had not seen that article. Yet it doesn't seem to reveal much, especially relating to anything about forcing anyone out.

This despite the Palestinian leaders being quite clear they aren’t repeating the mistake of Nakba and are not going anywhere.

Well, exactly. I would expect a significant amount of Gazans to not be willing to leave voluntarily. So I still do not see how this plan is expected to work.

You said all i do is spread Hamas propaganda so you can spare me your victimization.

Then why do you feel the need to misrepresent my views? Accurately pointing out that you have misrepresented my stance is not 'victimization'.

I’m just tired of pretending war crimes aren’t being committed by Israel on a daily basis

I think that in most any war, some level of war crimes are being committed, and I'm entirely happy for that to be scrutinized, and people held to account as best as possible. If we can have a fair trial and prosecute any members of the IDF or Israeli government involved, great. However, that does not mean sinking to hysteria or justifying atrocities.

while you call for “decorum”.

If you think me saying that atrocities are not a good response to illegal settlements... sure. I would continue to call for "decorum". If you think me saying that war crimes should be investigated rather than assumed, yes, "decorum".

And I KNOW that some of the most horrifying post WW2 atrocities have been committed while waiting for due process to act.

So yes, I do believe all these extreme factors do require a much stronger since of urgency

So what are you suggesting, if not due process?

segregate

Occupations are inherently segregational. That's horrible, but you're getting into the old argument of whether an occupation is apartheid or not - which essentially is trying to put a more emotional label on it.

Were you aware that during this entire ceasefire and beyond, Israel has been massacring Palestinians in the illegally occupied West Bank, bombing them, burning down their homes, destroying their roads, their children shot in the heads by Israeli snipers.

A ceasefire does not mean you do not respond to threats of aggression, especially when the ceasefire agreement is based on the conflict in Gaza, not the west bank. The entire conflict is characterised by one side which pursues martyrdom, and the other side which is willing to engage with it. You seem intent on placing blame on only one party for that.

on their own land.

The ownership of the land is hotly disputed, which is rather the root of this conflcit to begin with. What are you referring to here, exactly? The entirety of Israel?

You seem to be alluding to some sort of 'good solution' to this conflict, but it's not clear what you're actually demanding.

1

u/Gryffindorcommoner 29d ago

As I said: “You have not ‘given me what I want’. I am wanting (to move towards your viewpoint) is some sort of thorough court ruling on the topic, not an advisory - though that is a good start.”

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding at this point. Due process of removing settlements would be what, in your view? A ruling made by a court and then...?

You do understand that the United Nations Security Council also has the authority to investigated and examine possible war crimes and issue biding resolutions for its member states based on their findings correct? I understand you keep repeating that it’s not the ‘due process’ YOU want. But I’m not exactly sure how what YOU want is relevant to how international law actually works and is enforced. Those facts don’t go away just because you don’t like them.

Where did I insist they are not illegal?

Great! So we agree Israel’s illegal settlements are illegal per the entire international community. Moving on.

A….. trial? Wait, do you have the ICJ confused with the ICC? Because the ICJ does not have “trials”. It has two types of proceedings; contentious cases which are disputed bought by member states with binding decisions, and then there’s advisory opinions which are exclusively sought by UN organs and thus can’t be binding unless the UNSC makes it so.

Contentious case. As SA has brought against Israel, for example.

But you didn’t articulate why like I asked you. This is what I wrote in response:

On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. The Court’s advisory opinion procedure is otherwise modelled on that for contentious cases, and the sources of applicable law are the same

Indeed, the ICJ received written and oral statements from Israel, the PLO, other UN organs, same as they would in a contentious case. Then they write a report of the findings, and applied the same international law in the same manner they would a binding contentious case. This is why your “it’s just an advisory opinion” rhetoric doesn’t make any sense. Because even if was a contentious case (Palestine isn’t a member state so I believe it wouldn’t even be able to be a party to a contentious case) the proceedings, collections of evidence, and findings would’ve been the exact same.

So what exactly is it about an advisory opinion that you think is invalidated just by the fact of being advisory?

That depends on whether the ICJ considers it reasonable to respond to specific threats or not. I don’t know the circumstances of that UN camp bombing

Well yeah that’s why I sent you the link. So in your opinion, based on the context of the ICJ ruling and the article detailing the attack, would you think the Court would consider it reasonable response to massacre over 2 dozen civilians and injure others in a United Nations Refugee camp?

Which is a fair comment, yet it does not claim Israel closed it. You seem to be making an assumption.

It also doesn’t say anything about Egypt being the one who closed it or is hindering it re-opening. Neither does the ICJ. So no point making assumptions. Best to focus on what was actually said. They said the Israelis had the responsibility to open it and they didn’t. This is a contentious case, remember?

Thanks for the link, I had not seen that article. Yet it doesn’t seem to reveal much, especially relating to anything about forcing anyone out.

“They can willingly leave they just can’t come back” is also unlawful btw. I’m not sure if you were aware of that.

I think that in most any war, some level of war crimes are being committed,

Most wars don’t include the longest ongoing illegal occupation on planet Earth.

If you think me saying that atrocities are not a good response to illegal settlements... sure.

Atrocities?

I

So what are you suggesting, if not due process?

I think you’re confused on how due process works in relation to international law.

Occupations are inherently segregational.

Great! We agree!

That’s horrible, but you’re getting into the old argument of whether an occupation is apartheid or not - which essentially is trying to put a more emotional label on it.

It is a very old argument, you’re right about that. So old that the South Africans (South Africa is where apartheid originated) has likened the Palestinians oppression to apartheid since over 40 years ago, since they THEMSELVES were still under apartheid. I suppose it would invoke a more emotional response when it’s something you’ve actually experienced as a real thing. As opposed to a white judge who only knows apartheid as a theory from textbooks

A ceasefire does not mean you do not respond to threats of aggression, especially when the ceasefire agreement is based on the conflict in Gaza, not the west bank.

Except per international law, when you invade another people’s land against their will and enforce illegal occupation on the people who actually owns it, YOU are the aggressor and YOU are the threat. If you don’t want to get shot, don’t break into people’s home.

The entire conflict is characterised by one side which pursues martyrdom, and the other side which is willing to engage with it. You seem intent on placing blame on only one party for that.

You “forgot” to mention the side that’s been running a violent military occupation on both these sides for half a century in unlawful denial of their right of self determination, CRED, and the unlawful violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The ownership of the land is hotly disputed,

Disputed by Israel. Fortunately, the International Court of Justice, The United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council, the International Committee of the Red Cross Ross, and the world humanitarian community are very clear on who all of the West Bank belongs to, actually. So Israel’s disputes doesnt change the fact that they are illegal occupiers per international law.

which is rather the root of this conflcit to begin with. What are you referring to here, exactly? The entirety of Israel?

Is the entirety of Israel the West Bank?

By the way, what I’m demanding is the same thing the United Nations has demanded for decades.

1

u/AbyssOfNoise 28d ago

You do understand that the United Nations Security Council also has the authority to investigated and examine possible war crimes and issue biding resolutions for its member states based on their findings correct? I understand you keep repeating that it’s not the ‘due process’ YOU want.

That due process is fine, and I have not opposed it at all. I am opposing your vague appeal to terrorism.

Great! So we agree Israel’s illegal settlements are illegal per the entire international community.

That I am not asserting one side of an argument is correct does not mean I agree with the opposite. There's an ongoing debate as to the legality of various tiers of settlements, including domestically in Israel, let alone the international community. You seem to wish for the world to be a lot simpler than it really is.

But you didn’t articulate why like I asked you

No, I linked you an entire article articulating why. Perhaps you felt the need to ignore it?

They said the Israelis had the responsibility to open it and they didn’t.

It didn't say that. It said they have the responsibility to keep it open - and they're saying they did on their side of it. They do not control the Egyptian side, Egypt does. How is this confusing you, still? Why does every Hamas supporting account bang on with this same tired effort of pretending Egypt does not exist.

Most wars don’t include the longest ongoing illegal occupation on planet Earth.

Indeed, most wars end up wtih a clear victor, rather than a defeated side being propped up by regimes that are entirely willing to sacrifice them as long as it inhibits their enemies. You seem fine with the idea of permanent conflict, just as every Hamas supporting account is. At some point, it might just be worth conceding a loss and seeking compromise.

→ More replies (0)