Great article and I agree with you, unfortunately some people are blinded by their ignorance and stupidity and I see some comments that just prove that. Six interim measures were mandated by the ICJ ruling, which also required Israel to refrain from violating the Genocide Convention, stop and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, and take prompt, decisive action to guarantee the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza's civilian population. the Court also mandated that Israel retain any proof of genocide and report to it within a month detailing all actions taken in compliance with its directive. The court did not just say ceasefire, but it’s the beginning of it and it’s a start to end this occupation and brutal violence against Palestinians.
Excellent piece Robert. The quote from Hillel the Elder certainly brings things into focus and points you make re Zionists using the Holocaust as cover to genocide on the Palestinian people ring true. Thanks!
How unfortunate for you then that the ICJ just issued a preliminary ruling on the alleged "genocide" in Gaza. They gave no indication that a genocide was happening, and in fact they said the war can continue AND Hamas must release the hostages unconditionally and immediately.
But let me guess: you know something the ICJ doesn't?
The ICJ gave a provisional judgement regarding Israel's actions in Gaza, instructing apartheid Israel to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. The Court stated that the South African contention of genocide by Israel is plausible. The final Court determination has not yet been made. Do you know something that the Court does not know?
The ICJ didn't order Israel to do any such thing. They didn't even call for a ceasefire, which they absolutely would have done if they had even the slightest inkling that a genocide was happening. I claim no special knowledge here, I'm just going by what the Court said. You and Robert should do the same instead of making shit up.
I suggest that you try reading the Court's decision. This is what the Court stated (which falls under the category of stopping the mass slaughter):
Israel must take all possible measures to prevent acts as outlined in Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention. This entails not killing members of a particular group (in this case, Palestinians), not causing physical or psychological harm to members of that group, not inflicting living conditions which are calculated to bring about the end of the existence of a people, and not carrying out actions designed to prevent births within that group of people. The Court also instructed Israel to prevent or punish those calling for genocide of the Palestinian people. You appear to be among those who believe that Israel can do no wrong and must be exempt from international law. Thus far, the IDF has murdered more than 26,000 Palestinians in Gaza (as well as more than 320 in the occupied West Bank). The vast majority of the victims of Israeli aggression are civilians, including 12,000 women and children. Bombing hospitals, UN schools being used as air raid shelters, bombing impoverished refugee camps, mosques and churches, and bombing civilians in areas they were instructed by the IDF to relocate, shooting civilians waving white flags, inter alia, can not be described as Israel "defending itself." These all constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. History will not judge apartheid Israel very kindly.
That means it's not happening now. Is English not your first language? If the ICJ had instructed Israel "to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians," you would be able to quote exact language of them saying that. But the truth is that you are lying, the ICJ said no such thing.
Like I said, you and Robert should stop making shit up. Even Hamas isn't arguing that the vast majority of the Gazan casualties are civilians, nor is Israel trying to get their hostages back "aggression." You're not even fooling yourself.
Ray Doherty, I am not sure this "Anonymous" person is even worth responding to. S/he clearly has either not read the report and is making it all up, doesn't understand what s/he is reading, or is playing a little time-wasting game with us. Or maybe it is "opposite day" today?
Have you even read the court's decision? The decision states clearly that they have more than an inkling that genocide is occurring. In fact, if they did not have strong reason to believe that Israel is committing genocide, they would have dismissed the case.
You are NOT "going by what the Court said". In fact, you are flat out denying what is clearly written in the Court's report.
I think we can agree on what the Court says, but disagree about the meaning of what it says.
I think that when the Court declines to call for a cease-fire, that means they do not have a strong belief that Israel is committing genocide and are willing to allow the war to continue because it's most likely that Israel is adhering to the rules of warfare.
You think that when the Court declines to call for a cease-fire, that means that they have a strong belief that Israel is committing genocide but they're just going to stand aside and not do anything to stop Israel because they love dead Palestinians and are looking to enable genocide.
Both are interpretations, I think mine is a teeny bit more credible than yours, but we can agree to disagree.
You wrote: "I think we can agree on what the Court says, but disagree about the meaning of what it says."
To start with you couldn't even get right what the Court said until I corrected you, and now you think we can agree on what the Court says? Not for a moment. I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head and cry out of pity for you.
Here is what I WILL do, though. I will ignore you from now on because I simply do not have another moment to waste on your delusional nonsense.
Unfortunately, your reading of the ICJ interim ruling is inaccurate.
I am not sure what ruling you read in which you found no indication that genocide "was happening". In the ruling I have read it is clear that the Court found it . If the Court had not determined that there is strong reason to believe genocide is happening, it would have issued a very different ruling indeed.
And no, the ruling did not say the "war" can continue. True, they did not order the hoped-for ceasefire, but that is not by a long shot the same as saying the war can continue.
Yes, the the interim ruling ordered that Hamas must release the hostages. Funny, though, you do not mention a single one of the several orders the court issued to Israel. Did you fail to see them?
Like I just said, if the Court believes that genocide is occurring, then they're really not doing their job at a very fundamental level if they're allowing Israel to continue to fight the war. What's stopping them from ordering the cease-fire, in your view?
I saw the orders for the Court for Israel and I agree with every single one of them. Do you agree with their ruling for Hamas?
This must be your first day online. Anonymous accounts are basic internet safety, honey. Especially given how deranged and psychotic pro-Palestinians have been even before October 7th, it's just a smart idea to protect yourself to avoid being doxxed or swatted. You should consider doing the same.
Great article and I agree with you, unfortunately some people are blinded by their ignorance and stupidity and I see some comments that just prove that. Six interim measures were mandated by the ICJ ruling, which also required Israel to refrain from violating the Genocide Convention, stop and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, and take prompt, decisive action to guarantee the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza's civilian population. the Court also mandated that Israel retain any proof of genocide and report to it within a month detailing all actions taken in compliance with its directive. The court did not just say ceasefire, but it’s the beginning of it and it’s a start to end this occupation and brutal violence against Palestinians.
Excellent piece Robert. The quote from Hillel the Elder certainly brings things into focus and points you make re Zionists using the Holocaust as cover to genocide on the Palestinian people ring true. Thanks!
How unfortunate for you then that the ICJ just issued a preliminary ruling on the alleged "genocide" in Gaza. They gave no indication that a genocide was happening, and in fact they said the war can continue AND Hamas must release the hostages unconditionally and immediately.
But let me guess: you know something the ICJ doesn't?
The ICJ gave a provisional judgement regarding Israel's actions in Gaza, instructing apartheid Israel to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians. The Court stated that the South African contention of genocide by Israel is plausible. The final Court determination has not yet been made. Do you know something that the Court does not know?
The ICJ didn't order Israel to do any such thing. They didn't even call for a ceasefire, which they absolutely would have done if they had even the slightest inkling that a genocide was happening. I claim no special knowledge here, I'm just going by what the Court said. You and Robert should do the same instead of making shit up.
I suggest that you try reading the Court's decision. This is what the Court stated (which falls under the category of stopping the mass slaughter):
Israel must take all possible measures to prevent acts as outlined in Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention. This entails not killing members of a particular group (in this case, Palestinians), not causing physical or psychological harm to members of that group, not inflicting living conditions which are calculated to bring about the end of the existence of a people, and not carrying out actions designed to prevent births within that group of people. The Court also instructed Israel to prevent or punish those calling for genocide of the Palestinian people. You appear to be among those who believe that Israel can do no wrong and must be exempt from international law. Thus far, the IDF has murdered more than 26,000 Palestinians in Gaza (as well as more than 320 in the occupied West Bank). The vast majority of the victims of Israeli aggression are civilians, including 12,000 women and children. Bombing hospitals, UN schools being used as air raid shelters, bombing impoverished refugee camps, mosques and churches, and bombing civilians in areas they were instructed by the IDF to relocate, shooting civilians waving white flags, inter alia, can not be described as Israel "defending itself." These all constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. History will not judge apartheid Israel very kindly.
pre·vent /prēˈvent/verb
1. keep (something) from happening or arising.
That means it's not happening now. Is English not your first language? If the ICJ had instructed Israel "to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians," you would be able to quote exact language of them saying that. But the truth is that you are lying, the ICJ said no such thing.
Like I said, you and Robert should stop making shit up. Even Hamas isn't arguing that the vast majority of the Gazan casualties are civilians, nor is Israel trying to get their hostages back "aggression." You're not even fooling yourself.
Ray Doherty, I am not sure this "Anonymous" person is even worth responding to. S/he clearly has either not read the report and is making it all up, doesn't understand what s/he is reading, or is playing a little time-wasting game with us. Or maybe it is "opposite day" today?
Have you even read the court's decision? The decision states clearly that they have more than an inkling that genocide is occurring. In fact, if they did not have strong reason to believe that Israel is committing genocide, they would have dismissed the case.
You are NOT "going by what the Court said". In fact, you are flat out denying what is clearly written in the Court's report.
I think we can agree on what the Court says, but disagree about the meaning of what it says.
I think that when the Court declines to call for a cease-fire, that means they do not have a strong belief that Israel is committing genocide and are willing to allow the war to continue because it's most likely that Israel is adhering to the rules of warfare.
You think that when the Court declines to call for a cease-fire, that means that they have a strong belief that Israel is committing genocide but they're just going to stand aside and not do anything to stop Israel because they love dead Palestinians and are looking to enable genocide.
Both are interpretations, I think mine is a teeny bit more credible than yours, but we can agree to disagree.
You wrote: "I think we can agree on what the Court says, but disagree about the meaning of what it says."
To start with you couldn't even get right what the Court said until I corrected you, and now you think we can agree on what the Court says? Not for a moment. I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head and cry out of pity for you.
Here is what I WILL do, though. I will ignore you from now on because I simply do not have another moment to waste on your delusional nonsense.
Goodbye.
Don't let you hit the door in your ass on the way out.
Unfortunately, your reading of the ICJ interim ruling is inaccurate.
I am not sure what ruling you read in which you found no indication that genocide "was happening". In the ruling I have read it is clear that the Court found it . If the Court had not determined that there is strong reason to believe genocide is happening, it would have issued a very different ruling indeed.
And no, the ruling did not say the "war" can continue. True, they did not order the hoped-for ceasefire, but that is not by a long shot the same as saying the war can continue.
Yes, the the interim ruling ordered that Hamas must release the hostages. Funny, though, you do not mention a single one of the several orders the court issued to Israel. Did you fail to see them?
Like I just said, if the Court believes that genocide is occurring, then they're really not doing their job at a very fundamental level if they're allowing Israel to continue to fight the war. What's stopping them from ordering the cease-fire, in your view?
I saw the orders for the Court for Israel and I agree with every single one of them. Do you agree with their ruling for Hamas?
This must be your first day online. Anonymous accounts are basic internet safety, honey. Especially given how deranged and psychotic pro-Palestinians have been even before October 7th, it's just a smart idea to protect yourself to avoid being doxxed or swatted. You should consider doing the same.
Would you like to respond to my actual point now?