Hamas offensive against Israel

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
It's not very often you get a palestinian journalist speaking out.....

 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Excellent article:


With interesting tidbit:

The Rome Statute allows the UN Security Council to draw on its Chapter VII authority to vote to defer for 12 months any investigation of sitting officials on the basis that an indictment or arrest warrant would create an impediment to peace and security.

This would be a legal and legitimate strategy available to the US (or any member of the UNSC) for postponing further action by the court. Of course, the success of this strategy would require the other permanent UNSC members to agree to refrain from using their veto.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I doubt anything fruitful will come from dissecting your post and answering questions to which the answers are clearly in previous posts, and merely risks getting this thread locked, so I'll do this just once. The answer to your question above:
Why would it be locked?

I can't see why anything I have said would be so triggering that it would be necessary to not be able to talk about it. If you want to call it ignorant on my part im good with that, but I would also think that maybe it is just not understanding what it is I actually am saying. I do not agree at all with how non-Jewish people are treated in Isreal, Gaza, and the West Bank, and im guessing many other places in that region.

If you need a beat to talk about it im good with that, am not trying to troll you at all. I am really trying to help people online understand that the attack on us all is trying to make it so we can't talk about complex issues that have many viewpoints that some are being cherry picked to radicalize us all to the extent possible on any of the many positions one could take on the issue. And while I am expressing what it is that I have seen/think about the information I have digested on this, and all the other history I have from living in a nation that my own people have been so genocided that my ancestry is not considered "American" for the last 45 years, I am not so married to anything that I would be upset about discussing it.

It's a non-disputable fact Hamas can't be trusted.
Agreed

This has no bearing at the topic at hand and is irrelevant to the ICC's actions and evidence gathering process.
How can you be so certain about this?

With what we know has been happening in the attack on us all, how can you actually be sure? And I am not even saying that they could not have the information necessary through independent means to bring criminal charges against Bibi (and I really am happy to see them do it), how would you know that they are not doing it to just set up a scandal that they can push against this for a while to stir the pot?

It's also a non-disputable fact Hamas' attackers behave like animals. Reiterating the burned grandmas suggests it's relevant, while it's not. It gave Israel the right to attack, it does not put Nethanyahu above the law.
Agreed about Netanyahu, bit it is relevant in the retaliation that is going on currently. I don't see how it wouldn't be.


McConnel being a dickhead isn't relevant either, it's his comment that it's a kangaroo court I referenced. Kangaroo courts do something like both sides trolls, throwing spaghetti at the wall, selling narratives.... politics.
So a troll using a troll from another area is not relevant if this is indeed being done to set up a troll?


That's some courts in the US, that's not the ICC. It would cease to exists near instantly.
I appreciate that you are that confident in them and their goals.

There's no reason or precedent to think it is doing any of that, that's just pretend, to create a narrative, a spin, yours.
Ok.

A lot of career officials right now can say the same thing though, so while I have zero problem with them bringing this lawsuit, prior to actual trials I won't hold my breath about the validity of it.

The international community, legal experts from all colors and flavors, the ICC, *I*, we are not attacking Biden, we are not trolling a both sides story (I am too pro-israel and more reluctantly pro-Palestine), we are extremely dissappointed by Biden's and Blinken's knee-jerk responses and poor arguments that will never ever be considered valid reasonable responses at something like the ICC.
Could that be because all those people who are disappointed are just not as read in on what is going on behind the scenes to help end this horrendous war that is being conducted and don't understand the tight rope that dealing with essentially two terrorist (Bibi and Hamas) trying/willing to kill everyone in-between them to get at one another?

Biden's and Blinken's knee-jerk responses and poor arguments that will never ever be considered valid reasonable responses at something like the ICC.
So then what I read this as being is that by coming out and condemning this, it really doesn't change shit that the ICC does so it is cheap politics that they can toss out there to hopefully keep them and the terrorists killing everyone in between them at the table for as long as it takes to end this shit?

Nobody suggest outrage to Biden's comments, that's the world upsidedown, it was Biden who claimed it's outrageous.
I apologize, based on the last sentence, 'disappointed' would be more appropriate in this case.

Which is like cherrypicking from the bible if you understand your history and how we and the US came to be...
I don't get it.

The answer to your other question: "What are they actively doing to try to obstruct this?" is in the first 5 words where you cut off my quote, the remaining part of this sentence.
If I cut off words in your quote I did not intend to do that.

K I double checked, I think you just missed that I actually did not cut those, they are just in the part above it.

The answer to your other question: "What are they actively doing to try to obstruct this?" is in the first 5 words where you cut off my quote, the remaining part of this sentence.
How is the ICC knowing it would cause backlash, and Biden backlashing about how it is unhelpful behind the scenes actively obstructing it? America as far as I know isn't even part of the ICC and are not doing anything to stop anything.


Excellent article:


With interesting tidbit:

The Rome Statute allows the UN Security Council to draw on its Chapter VII authority to vote to defer for 12 months any investigation of sitting officials on the basis that an indictment or arrest warrant would create an impediment to peace and security.

This would be a legal and legitimate strategy available to the US (or any member of the UNSC) for postponing further action by the court. Of course, the success of this strategy would require the other permanent UNSC members to agree to refrain from using their veto.
I didn't go further because of the cookies, but sounds good to me.

Biden should stick with trying to being peace in the region and sticking to doing what we can to get food through that pier to help the northern Gazans, and making sure that the potshots trying to kill innocent people throughout the region do as little damage sa possible. And other outside aggitator dictators have as hard a time as possible to help take advantage of this war by increasing the heat on their own neighbors.

Trump was horrible for this region, he has a lot to answer for the instability caused by Netanyahu when he just signed America's name on the line to do whatever the hell Bibi wanted and thought they could get away with.
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
if ya wanna know about right wing propaganda in the middle east and beyond....i've even found Dugin on it too.....memri.org

there is some crazy shit on there from around the world for the middle east theatre
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Why would it be locked?
Cause there’s no way in hell the mods are going to give me the leeway to respond in the way you are doing. I explained and substantiated my opinions in what I think is a reasonable manner. There’s no misunderstanding or triggeredness on my part. I’m not suggesting you are trying to troll me either, at least not intentionally or with malicious intend. I’m saying, know, you and I are not capable of having a discussion where we disagree given the setting and restriction that come with it and I prefer to spend my time on let’s say a different style of discussion. One that doesn’t involve dissecting posts into a ton of quotes rather than a few cohorent paragraphs that reference fairly what was said. So yeah, going to have to pass before my responses are considered arguing and stick to posting my take, including reasonable substaniated arguments.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
The two comments in the above article regarding how Biden and Blinken "missed the mark" is exactly what I refer to with disappointing responses. (as if they were asked by reporters while boarding a plane, or so some people hope...)

"U.S. President Joe Biden and leaders in the UK, Austria, and the Czech Republic have denounced the Prosecutor’s move as outrageous “false equivalency.” That response misses the mark."

Germany was not outraged but did join the false equivalence bandwagon. After a day of silence so did Trudeau.

Germany says it ‘respects the independence’ of ICC
The German government, Israel’s staunchest supporter in Europe, said it “respects the independence and procedures” of the ICC, but warned the move created a false equivalence between the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government. Calling the court a “fundamental achievement of the international community” Germany’s foreign office stressed that a pre-trial chamber must first decide whether the prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant are justified. However, by requesting warrants for the leaders of the two sides, “the inaccurate impression has arisen of an equivalence,” the foreign office said in a statement on Monday night.
“The court will have to answer a number of difficult questions,” it said.



I’m particularly interested to see how Germany deals with the situation, as, as the article above says, Europe’s staunchest supporter of Israel (for obvious and from their perspective extra good reasons they should probably literally be the last to stop defending Israel).

But "An inaccurate impression of an equivalence"...

"Bandwagon" because it's as if world leaders had a conference call regarding how to respond to this. I think it's a crap argument. They don't make the same fallacy coincidentally together, it's a narrative. That impression of it being inaccurate is obviously accurate. To get that inaccurate impression you need to be very biased and/or pretty much willingly choose the inaccurate impression. The ICC makes zero argument for moral or legal equivalence between Israel and Hamas’ actions except perhaps in regards to the victims. Missing the mark is an understatement here, it's completely fallacious, false, and shows they didn't study ethics. And it will go down in history as such, this is a turning point in history. There was Covid, then Putin, then Hamas vs Israel, and now the request for arrest warrants and the divided responses. That's why Ireland, Norway, and Spain announced it now, it's done over with, this is a hill to die on, it has to stop.

Blinken's (as well as UK's and Italy's) argument the ICC has no jurisdiction isn't a great a one either. Disputed by many legal experts but is debatable. By itself that is, cause do we care when it involves war crimes and crimes against humanity? The other members accepted Palestinian areas as a member. Seems that's all the jurisdiction they legally need. UK’s comments are extra inappropriate imo, after all it’s in large part how they handled their ‘jurisdiction‘ post WW1 that created the mess.

From the same article in previous post, the other missed mark.

"U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has accused the Prosecutor of ignoring complementarity by not “allowing the Israeli legal system a full and timely opportunity to proceed. … The prosecutor did not afford the same opportunity to Israel, which has ongoing investigations into allegations against its personnel.” This too misses the mark."

I thought initially Blinken made, contrary to the rest, a good point with this, about giving Israel time to deal with Netanyahu - I very much prefer the Israelis deal with this themselves - but after the many reasonable and valid counterarguments it doesn't hold up either. Could and imo should have at least discussed matters extensively before drawing a conclusion and being “outraged”, wait till after the pre-trial, see what the judges have to say based on the evidence.

The response "it's not genocide" was another missed mark. May not if it were prefixed by "No you crazy idealistic students, stop saying without proof it is genocide,".Genocide is not a condition to be charged for war crimes and crimes to humanity. Nothing the outraged proponents bring up is a valid, legal or moral argument. Which is troubling, especially since these replies come before the evidence have been examined. If the US wants to see it (after a trial that is unlikely to ever happen) that would happen.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Some more international responses:

We haven’t seen such a show of hypocrisy and hatred of Jews like that of the Hague Tribunal since Nazi propaganda,” Smotrich [finance minister Israel] said on X.

Really? Hatred of Jews? Like, all of them? :roll:

I also see several nation’s leaders argue it’s unacceptable because Netanyahu is democratically elected. I don’t see how that is relevant either. Putin too is democratically elected, sort of anyway. Being democratically elected doesn’t grant you immunity for committing war crimes.

Our southern neighbor: “Belgium will continue to support the essential work of international justice to ensure that those responsible for all crimes are held accountable,”. No buts. Netanyahu will not be visiting Brussel to talk to EU politicians anytime soon.

And of course, vive la France. (France who took in Hugo Grotius after a dutch prince locked him up and he escaped so he could finish his work that underpin the US constitution and the laws Netanyahu broke, we too owe them so much)

“"As far as Israel is concerned, it will be up to the court's pre-trial chamber to decide whether to issue these warrants, after examining the evidence put forward by the prosecutor ... ," the ministry said.

Edit, Australia:
Australia respects ICC’s independence after Netanyahu arrest warrant request, government says - Government rejects suggestions it should criticise the court, which has sought arrest warrants for the Israeli PM and Hamas officials for war crimes.
They are pretty divided though:

It‘s still remarkably silent in the Hague, which nationally doesn't refer to the ICC but NL politics ('in Washington'). One guy, potential future Rutte, said it was unacceptable. Rutte himself I expect is trying to navigate between his potential NATO career and doing what he normally does, being reasonable. He's a friend of Netanyahu, an ally of Biden, but also a history teacher. About a month left till we shift to the very right, which is all pro-Israel. I hope he does the right thing and expresses full support for the ICC.
 
Last edited:

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
With respect to the ICC and the Hague, why did it take 4 wars between Hamas and Israel for them to get involved? Just because of South Africa, and tbh they have no room to talk, from back in the 80' and early 90's, they got skeletons in the closet with the Apartied stuff back then......
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Though not quite as hypocrite as Putin calling for peace, I had similar thoughts regarding South Africa. Though we all got skeletons... ("Apartheid" is a Dutch word...), I think by recognizing those, which they do, they have a right to speak. Because of that history they recognize the oppression, the very same reason Ireland and Spain are such big Palestine supporters.

But South Africa's case was specifically regarding genocide was it not? Are the arrest warrants a direct result of that, I haven't seen/heard it referenced yet. Pretty sure they were looking at it before that. I don't know why it took this long, I don't even know if it was applicable in earlier wars, but I think what matters is "why now?" and that seems to be simply because now they can prove it. Better late than never?

Assad killed what... a 100k? Why not him first, or too. No idea.

Khan himself said: "We've been criticized for going too slowly, criticized for going too fast. It's a forensic process that is expected of us as international prosecutors, as an independent court to build evidence that is solid, that will not dissolve in the courtroom, and that's what we've done."

By default I think it's reasonable to assume he's not full of shit unless proven or reasonably substantiated otherwise. He'll obviously have to back it up. His whole demeanor and responses to criticism so far tells me Netanyahu is screwed, whether he shows up or not. And when it all comes out, some people might have to uhm... reconsider and adjust their position. Are you sure you want to supply weapons to, or trade with, someone the ICC wants to arrest for war crimes based on evidence.

The whole false equivalence stuff is noise. When someone is accused of the things Nethanyahu is accused of you don't go "but it's not the same as what Hamas did or as bad" or w/e. Direct the outrage towards the ones violating international law? The ones that have been warned over and over and over, by the ICC, by Biden and Blinken, by 5 days ago the G7 + a whole bunch of other countries. We get your pissed off Israel and it's justified to attack Hamas, but there's a few rules, really not a whole lot, just a few things you just cannot do. Else shit gets really messy.

In hindsight, I propose everytime any nation is in war with another nation we all together send an international force, blue helmets. I am dissappointed in Israel too, most are smarter than this. Took me decades to learn not all my German neighbors are krauts, I refuse to paint people with a wide brush, but they fucked this one up. I'm no hypocrite or snowflake, a few hospitals, some amputated kids, hungry people, it's war. Maybe point out where the hostages are you know... But when the ICC says they went too far, I listen.

"for them to get involved?". Surely multiple people are involved, but it's still up to a panel of judges to decide. I don't blindly trust Khan or anyone else, but if that panel of judges decides the arrest warrants will be issued I see no reason to doubt they have a strong case and the intend is just the obvious, uphold international law.
 

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I'm getting the point. If you're suggesting Israel too needs some more of that western law instilled and applied than sure, no argument there. They don't even have a constitution. But that "whatabout Israel" doesn't change the facts laid out by Salman regarding a Palestinian state and my comment about nation-building.

Our freedom of religion was all about keeping protestants and catholics from bashing each others heads in, it was meant to grant freedom from the hold someone else (Catholics down south or protestant monarchs) wanted on you in the name of religion, against the discrimination by religious against religious, it doesn't mean you can violate other human rights, whip your wife, nor violate the rest of the equally important equality clause. It's a historic artifact and not the nr 1 law
After re-reading your post, I mistook and thought you were insinuating something different.

I am not sure I fully accept what Salman is stating re: students showing support for Hamas; students are still figuring out how the world works and I could see how it would be easy for their brains to revert back to tribalism when in fight or flight mode while being called anti-Semitic for protesting what they see happening in Gaza. I'm certain that there are some that protested and have real hatred in their hearts and minds, but I believe the vast majority are protesting because they see injustice happening towards other human beings - regardless of religion or race. If all the superpower countries turned their backs on Israel and the surrounding Middle East nations attacked in the same manner as what is happening in Gaza, there is little doubt in my mind we would see the same protests but in support for Israel.

That freedom of religion may be a historic artifact, but it's just as important today as it was then. It seems like humans are doomed to have to re-learn many hard lessons that the world has already suffered through.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member

Sativied

Well-Known Member
South Africa,
Wanted to know if this is indeed a result from South Africa's case (demanding Israel stop a genocide in Gaza) but that's a different court. South Africa went to the ICJ, International Court of Justice (or World court, UN highest court), which handles disputes between nations, often issues regarding borders on land and sea. It's entirely separate from the ICC, the criminal court that prosecutes individuals.

This is from today:


An Israeli diplomatic source told Israel Hayom that legal experts assessed there was a high probability the court would rule to issue injunctions following a petition filed by South Africa against Israel's military actions. The [ICJ] is set to convene on Thursday, even though the court does not have binding authority.

The two potential scenarios, the source said, were that the court could order a cessation of Israeli operations in the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, or further, that it could seek to halt the broader war in Gaza entirely through court injunctions.

Orders to halt the war represent the most severe scenario that Israel had feared since the initial Hague hearings in January. Such orders could significantly impede Israel's ability to continue its military mission in Gaza, though Israel has repeatedly emphasized it is not bound by the court's rulings.

A significant concern is that injunctions from [ICJ in] The Hague could precipitate a similar resolution by the UN Security Council, where Israel would again require a United States veto to veto it. Israeli officials are bracing for that possibility in the coming days.


From another article:
While the ICJ in The Hague is considered the U.N.'s highest court, its rulings are sometimes ignored. In March 2022 the court ordered Russia to immediately halt its military campaign in Ukraine.

Let's see how the self-proclaimed civilized world responds to that... "As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN members are automatically parties to the court's statute."

 
Last edited:

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Seems pretty certain, given their responses, they will not comply. I think the question is will this lead to another vote in the UN security council and will US veto it. I think so, but this is an intermediate order, the case against Israel is still going, and there will be more votes in the future, increasingly harder to veto or dispute.

Rafah was the red line for dutch government, including most Israel supporters, that is, no “massive” invasion in Rafah. When they started the operation people were quick to remind Rutte about that red line, and he responsed they didn’t cross it yet. He hasn’t responded to ICC and ICJ‘s actions, I don’t think he will as he’s almost out and merely caretaker-PM. Wilders, our far-right winner-but-not-leader, did respond, and as expected. He lived in Israel for a few years, says he experienced the attacks and shelters, is probably most anti-islam populist in europe. He did say “not all muslims, radical muslims”…

I’d like the ICJ or anyone else come up with a decisive plan to get the remaining hostages back at the same time…

Despite this guy pulling the antisemetic card when clearly inappropriate, I do agree with this: “Lapid condemned Friday’s ruling by the ICJ for failing to draw a connection between its demand for an end to the fighting with a demand to return Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

Tricky, cause they cannot imply or suggest Israel can continue the way it’s going about it if Hamas doesn’t return hostages.
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
Seems pretty certain, given their responses, they will not comply. I think the question is will this lead to another vote in the UN security council and will US veto it. I think so, but this is an intermediate order, the case against Israel is still going, and there will be more votes in the future, increasingly harder to veto or dispute.

Rafah was the red line for dutch government, including most Israel supporters, that is, no “massive” invasion in Rafah. When they started the operation people were quick to remind Rutte about that red line, and he responsed they didn’t cross it yet. He hasn’t responded to ICC and ICJ‘s actions, I don’t think he will as he’s almost out and merely caretaker-PM. Wilders, our far-right winner-but-not-leader, did respond, and as expected. He lived in Israel for a few years, says he experienced the attacks and shelters, is probably most anti-islam populist in europe. He did say “not all muslims, radical muslims”…

I’d like the ICJ or anyone else come up with a decisive plan to get the remaining hostages back at the same time…

Despite this guy pulling the antisemetic card when clearly inappropriate, I do agree with this: “Lapid condemned Friday’s ruling by the ICJ for failing to draw a connection between its demand for an end to the fighting with a demand to return Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

Tricky, cause they cannot imply or suggest Israel can continue the way it’s going about it if Hamas doesn’t return hostages.
report out now, IDF did find 3 hostages, the unfortunate things about it, they have passed on.......now my question is was it the 2k bombs or was it Hamas? we will prolly never find out....js
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
I watched an interview with Irish PM and he says more nations will recognize Palestine in the upcoming weeks. Malta said they want it but timing is bad, and France said something similar, stressing this is not the moment.

Irish PM: “there’s never a wrong time to do the right thing”.

Seems there is some logistic problems with the aid coming in.......


i ran across another article that said some of the aid was also stolen, hey when your desperate you'll do anything to feed your family right....
I ran across a related article too. When Jake Tapper asked Netanyahu if Biden was wrong about his concerns regarding enough aid coming in and Netanyahu responded they shared that concern, try, but it gets stolen by Hamas.

This article shows there’s a little more to it, including “US officials have also said that Israel has offered no evidence to support allegations that Hamas is diverting aid.

 
Last edited:

Sativied

Well-Known Member
report out now, IDF did find 3 hostages, the unfortunate things about it, they have passed on.......now my question is was it the 2k bombs or was it Hamas? we will prolly never find out....js
I think any dead hostages, especially civilian, are above all on Hamas but yeah if you don't know where they are you can't know if the bombs you drop might hit some hostages too. Shows what a horrible situation the hostages and their family members and friends are in. Hamas still holds a key to end this war. Returning the hostages would surely motivate the world to demand Israel at least changes its methods.
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
I think any dead hostages, especially civilian, are above all on Hamas but yeah if you don't know where they are you can't know if the bombs you drop might hit some hostages too. Shows what a horrible situation the hostages and their family members and friends are in. Hamas still holds a key to end this war. Returning the hostages would surely motivate the world to demand Israel at least changes its methods.
true they do, but will they're masters let them is the ultimate question, presumably that would be IRAN and RUSSIA
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
true they do, but will they're masters let them is the ultimate question, presumably that would be IRAN and RUSSIA
About a month ago they were negotiating a cease fire deal including the release of 40 of hostages. Problem was, Hamas couldn’t find enough ‘living’ hostages that matched the criteria. Most are IDF soldiers, which I think they’ll be even more reluctant to release those.

 
Top