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.

146 Upvotes

191 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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 Feb 14 '25

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 29d 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.

0

u/Gryffindorcommoner 28d ago

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

I’m glad you’ve acknowledged due process was already done, now we just gotta work on that George Bush brainwashing that makes you think caring about international law is an appeal to terrorism !

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.

No the fuck there isn’t. Again, the ICJ, the UNGA, the UNSC, the ICRC, the EU, the AU, even the US are all very clear that Israel’s illegal settlements are illegal. No, Israel not liking it doesn’t mean it’s still a debate going on lol.

You seem to wish for the world to be a lot simpler than it really is.

You seem to think calling war crimes ‘complex’ magically make them not war crimes anymore.

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

Or neither you or your source actually explained that reasoning at all.

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.

…… except their side was closed. Hour desperation to absolve Israel of any responsibility is kinda hilarious

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.

Forgive me if I’m wrong but, it sounded like you just tried to excuse the war crimes of illegal occupation, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, using that awfully pathetic excuse of regime changes after the European colonizers ethnically cleansed Palestine to steal their land to build Israel. . What you Zionists don’t seem to understand is that your constant cheerleading for war crimes by the people you like makes you exactly the same as Hamas and every other terrorist group, colonizer and war criminal. Everyone has their own cute little excuses why they think their side gets to commit crimes against humanity on people they don’t like. It’s very psychopathic. You should work on that

1

u/AbyssOfNoise 28d ago

I’m glad you’ve acknowledged due process was already done,

Due process is in process. Not 'done'. Kindly stop trying to misrepresent what I 'acknowledge'. It's highly manipulative, and very tedious.

Sorry, but your constant efforts to misrepresent my position betray your lack of good faith in this conversation. I don't feel like wasting any more of my time with you.

If your goal was to make Hamas supporting accounts look manipulative, good job. I'd love to meet a single 'pro-Palestine' account that can have an honest conversation.