New War In Israel / Gaza

[Nivsch]

Israel won't stop the war against hamas anyway.

hamas's defense mechanisms are very sophisticated but this won't work.

Edited January 11 by Nivsch

[Yimpa]

Just now, Nivsch said:

Israel won't stop the war against hamas anyway.

hamas's defense mechanisms are very sophisticated but this won't work.

Spending billions on defense mechanisms must be the solution, then.

[Nivsch]

@Yimpa Do you mean physically?

Israel spent ~1.5 billion dollars on a smart fence out of an assumption this will prevent wars, but was wrong.

Edited January 11 by Nivsch

[Yimpa]

Just now, Nivsch said:

Israel spent billions on a smart fence out of an assumption this will prevent wars, but was wrong.

Donald Trump and Elon could team up to right this wrong.

[Thought Art]

Remember to be kind, and allow yourself to question your interpretations of things. Being open and closed in a calm cool way.

Realize this is a thread about conflict, so some degree of disagreement, different interpretations, confusion, etc is normal. 
 

As long as we remain relatively kind and respectful to each other given the nature of conflict things are going well here. 

Edited January 11 by Thought Art

[Yimpa]

Assuming that caring deeply about a war from a distance inherently makes you selfless is a selfish assumption.

We need more people who are willing to turn inwards at their own selfishness. This is the real challenging work; not the endless debating and finger pointing. 

Contemplating this war actually helped in my own personal life, connecting the larger conflict with my own inner conflict. 

[Karmadhi]

When will the verdict come? Anyone knows?

[kenway]

4 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   How there's silence and quiet about this video here is shocking:

   Speak up, and share your views on this UN tribunal.

 

So the SA speakers conveyed extremely strong explanitories for why the ICJ should consider it genocide (albeit as plausible) and I think they have played it really smart. By playing down emotional manipulation, and playing up facts and the underlying objectivity of "how and why", they've positioned the court into a space where the judges cannot credibly disagree.

Someone else mentioned about the use of UN reports serving as the basis for the argument. This is clever because to reject the motion would mean the UN overruling it's own faculties and findings. Most of the evidence appeared to be predominantly from UN or Israeli sources, rather than Palestinian ones.

There was a speculation that Article 51 might be used as a defense by Israel.  That is to say, that theoretically, even if provisional measures are advised or enforced, nothing can overrule a state's right to self-defense, and if Israel determined that its actions continue to be defensive in nature then it could theoretically ignore any such measure.

SA's pre-emptive response to this was to remind the court that Israel, is in fact an occupation as according the United Nations, and therefore Article 51 cannot apply because Article 51 only applies between two sovereign states, and that in actuality, there is no such division between Gaza and Israel main.

Or in other words, self-defense is a non-issue when you are in fact an occupying power, especially when charged with genocide against the people who you are occupying.

[Nivsch]

16 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

Assuming that caring deeply about a war from a distance inherently makes you selfless is a selfish assumption.

We need more people who are willing to turn inwards at their own selfishness. This is the real challenging work; not the endless debating and finger pointing. 

Contemplating this war actually helped in my own personal life, connecting the larger conflict with my own inner conflict. 

Liked

[Karmadhi]

Guys, any idea when the verdict will be?

[kenway]

3 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Guys, any idea when the verdict will be?

Maybe in a week or so.

Israel makes its defense tomorrow.

Edited January 11 by kenway

[Happy Lizard]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

   How there's silence and quiet about this video here is shocking:

   Speak up, and share your views on this UN tribunal.

It is very brutal. 
 

 

Edited January 11 by Happy Lizard

[Nivsch]

The Christian citizens of South Africa say something very different 🇮🇱🇿🇦

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C19dpl-tiF3/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

"South Africa stands with Israel even though they leaders have failed them" the post title. 

So, maybe, this is mostly the leaders there who blame Israel.

It reminds me of Iran where there are many Iranian who are supportive on Israel and most of them hates their regime.

Edited January 11 by Nivsch

[zazen]

1 hour ago, kenway said:

 

So the SA speakers conveyed extremely strong explanitories for why the ICJ should consider it genocide (albeit as plausible) and I think they have played it really smart. By playing down emotional manipulation, and playing up facts and the underlying objectivity of "how and why", they've positioned the court into a space where the judges cannot credibly disagree.

Someone else mentioned about the use of UN reports serving as the basis for the argument. This is clever because to reject the motion would mean the UN overruling it's own faculties and findings. Most of the evidence appeared to be predominantly from UN or Israeli sources, rather than Palestinian ones.

There was a speculation that Article 51 might be used as a defense by Israel.  That is to say, that theoretically, even if provisional measures are advised or enforced, nothing can overrule a state's right to self-defense, and if Israel determined that its actions continue to be defensive in nature then it could theoretically ignore any such measure.

SA's pre-emptive response to this was to remind the court that Israel, is in fact an occupation as according the United Nations, and therefore Article 51 cannot apply because Article 51 only applies between two sovereign states, and that in actuality, there is no such division between Gaza and Israel main.

Or in other words, self-defense is a non-issue when you are in fact an occupying power, especially when charged with genocide against the people who you are occupying.

Great summary of what took place. They presented it in such a way that not only is Israel on trial but International law is itself at trial and in the hot seat - almost like a stress test for the international system. Also by comparing other genocides to which they intervened on which were much less devastating and where less explicit genocidal intent was  shown puts them in a awkward position if they weren't to intervene to stop a case which is much clearer - and stressing the fact that the founding of the UN and conventions were exactly fit for purposes such as this.

They nullified Israel's response of self defence before it's even made like you said as the occupier can't claim such things against the occupied. One defence which is more of a emotional one from Israel's side is that the statements of intent are done by radicals or extremists - yet it was made clear that all such people hold positions of authority to dictate policy and not just some random pedestrian. The argument of cherry picking statements from extremists doesn't work when there's enough quantity of cherries to pick that show a certain rot exists in the basket that contaminates the society, politics and geopolitics of the state.

@Danioover9000 Fair to say Israel got legally bodied. Israel likes to use disproportionate force (Dahiya doctrine) - seems like they got a disproportionate response in legal terms and evidence lol

A great link outlining all the statements and well categorised:

https://crimesbyisrael.com/

Will be interesting to see Israel's defence. Although, one shouldn't let what is decided (or coerced) in the chambers of law to dishearten and muzzle what echoes so loudly in the chambers of the heart as to what is just and right.

Edited January 11 by zazen

[Danioover9000]

@zazen

3 minutes ago, zazen said:

Great summary of what took place. They presented it in such a way that not only is Israel on trial but International law is itself at trial in the hot seat - almost like a stress test for a international system. Also by comparing other genocides to which they intervened on which were much less devastating and where less explicit genocidal intent was  shown puts them in a awkward position if they weren't to intervene to stop a case which is much clearer - and stressing the fact that the founding of the UN and conventions were exactly fit for purposes such as this.

They nullified Israel's response of self defence before it's even made like you said as the occupier can't claim such things against the occupied. One defence which is more of a emotional one from Israel's side is that the statements of intent are done by radicals or extremists - yet it was made clear that all such people hold positions of authority to dictate policy and not just some random pedestrian. The argument of cherry picking statements from extremists doesn't work when there's enough quantity of cherries to pick that show a certain rot exists in the basket that contaminates the society, politics and geopolitics of the state.

A great link outlining all the statements and well categorised:

 

Will be interesting to see Israel's defence. Although, one shouldn't let what is decided (or coerced) in the chambers of law dishearten and muzzle what echoes so loudly in the chambers of the heart as to what is just and right.

   Likely grasping straws and deflections, and trying to re-define genocide.

[kenway]

35 minutes ago, zazen said:

The argument of cherry picking statements from extremists doesn't work when there's enough quantity of cherries to pick that show a certain rot exists in the basket that contaminates the society, politics and geopolitics of the state.

Great line.

 

Quote

Will be interesting to see Israel's defence. Although, one shouldn't let what is decided (or coerced) in the chambers of law to dishearten and muzzle what echoes so loudly in the chambers of the heart as to what is just and right.

There are rumours that Israel plans to show the court the same "graphic video" that was shown to Owen Jones (among other journalists) as well as Elon Musk, and various Hollywood actors.

Apparently the video is highly graphic footage of the Oct 7 Hamas attacks, that appear to show people being killed and is regarded as being very emotionally-led and a difficult watch.

According to Owen Jones, he was only allowed to view the video once, in a controlled environment, and although impactive on his initial viewing, had subsequent questions about what he thought he saw, compared to what he actually saw. Following up investigations, led to a kind of potential Mandela Effect in his eyes, and to me would imply that the video might be deceptive in its nature.

Certainly, following recent revelations that the IDF was actively invoking the Hannibal directive on Oct 7, there's space to assume that not everything about the events that took place are accurate. Israel is the persistent illusionist when it comes to propaganda, but despite being creatively ground-breaking in this regard, its efforts become neutered the moment the broader audience catch on to its gameplay.

The question is, will the court have sufficient acuity to recognize that?

In any event, it's reasonable to conclude that Israel is planning a supernova of emotional and intellectual manipulation - if so would be a stark contrast from the measured objectivity of South Africa's approach.

 

 

Edited January 11 by kenway

[zazen]

@kenway True, Owen Jones made a video about the viewing of that 50min video and said no rape or beheadings were seen although atrocities definitely were no doubt. If theirs no dirt to leverage these judges with behind the scenes then surely they will use emotional appeal to pull at heartstrings to compensate for lack of legal or moral grounds. Any sympathy from Oct 7th was abused and misused in disproportionate response.

I don’t think we’ll ever get to know what truly happened on October 7th, it could have been a military operation that got messy in confrontation with IDF or independent factions/individuals split off/broke through the fence along with them. Hamas would never admit that they had ordered the raping or killing of civilians rather than just the military objective to get hostages as a bargaining chip in exchange for their women/children political prisoners.

Neither will Israel allow for investigation into the rape allegations or the burnt cars that were suspiciously buried - maybe due to evidence pointing only to Israel’s ability to rain down such firepower on them that Hamas don’t posses.

Some possible excuses :

Trying to put myself in a lawyers shoes to defend Israel and I’m actually lost for any argument. Even saying that if ‘we as Israel wanted to commit genocide we already would have as we have the capability’ doesn’t work. Capability doesn’t mean acceptability by the world or that such actions won’t have consequences for the perpetrator - which is why ethnic cleansing or genocide has to be a slow and covert process rather than a fast and overt extinction like event.

Edited January 11 by zazen

[Raze]

 

 

Edited January 11 by Raze

[Danioover9000]

@zazen

57 minutes ago, zazen said:

@kenway True, Owen Jones made a video about the viewing of that 50min video and said no rape or beheadings were seen although atrocities definitely were no doubt. If theirs no dirt to leverage these judges with behind the scenes then surely they will use emotional appeal to pull at heartstrings to compensate for lack of legal or moral grounds. Any sympathy from Oct 7th was abused and misused in disproportionate response.

I don’t think we’ll ever get to know what truly happened on October 7th, it could have been a military operation that got messy in confrontation with IDF or independent factions/individuals split off/broke through the fence along with them. Hamas would never admit that they had ordered the raping or killing of civilians rather than just the military objective to get hostages as a bargaining chip in exchange for their women/children political prisoners.

Neither will Israel allow for investigation into the rape allegations or the burnt cars that were suspiciously buried - maybe due to evidence pointing only to Israel’s ability to rain down such firepower on them that Hamas don’t posses.

Some possible excuses :

Trying to put myself in a lawyers shoes to defend Israel and I’m actually lost for any argument. Even saying that if ‘we as Israel wanted to commit genocide we already would have as we have the capability’ doesn’t work. Capability doesn’t mean acceptability by the world or that such actions won’t have consequences for the perpetrator - which is why ethnic cleansing or genocide has to be a slow and covert process rather than a fast and overt extinction like event.

   So true, even when I imagine trying to argue for Israel's side it's tough. I can't just stick to logos anymore, I feel like appealing a whole lot to ethos and pathos to compensate for the lack of logos, and lack of solid logical explanation to explain each event from oct 7 onwards, like where do I begin? Maybe starting it off by explaining how difficult it is to fight guerilla warfare and tunnels just like in Vietnam, having to carpet bomb a wilderness, or reframing this as a siege warfare and go that route. It's tough, maybe the indoctrination path? I feel sorry for the lawyer having to do this. Maybe hire Destiny to argue for Israel.🤣

[Danioover9000]

@zazen

4 hours ago, zazen said:

Great summary of what took place. They presented it in such a way that not only is Israel on trial but International law is itself at trial and in the hot seat - almost like a stress test for the international system. Also by comparing other genocides to which they intervened on which were much less devastating and where less explicit genocidal intent was  shown puts them in a awkward position if they weren't to intervene to stop a case which is much clearer - and stressing the fact that the founding of the UN and conventions were exactly fit for purposes such as this.

They nullified Israel's response of self defence before it's even made like you said as the occupier can't claim such things against the occupied. One defence which is more of a emotional one from Israel's side is that the statements of intent are done by radicals or extremists - yet it was made clear that all such people hold positions of authority to dictate policy and not just some random pedestrian. The argument of cherry picking statements from extremists doesn't work when there's enough quantity of cherries to pick that show a certain rot exists in the basket that contaminates the society, politics and geopolitics of the state.

@Danioover9000 Fair to say Israel got legally bodied. Israel likes to use disproportionate force (Dahiya doctrine) - seems like they got a disproportionate response in legal terms and evidence lol

A great link outlining all the statements and well categorised:

https://crimesbyisrael.com/

Will be interesting to see Israel's defence. Although, one shouldn't let what is decided (or coerced) in the chambers of law to dishearten and muzzle what echoes so loudly in the chambers of the heart as to what is just and right.

   If Israel loses they have to abide by the provisional measures right, and if they refuse they are fined and embargoed by other countries? I imagine if Israel loses this will slow down and put more caps on what Israel militarily can do, which gives HAMAs some breathing room here, that's the tradeoff here that is bad for Israel.