Top UN court stops short of ordering cease-fire in Gaza and demands Israel contain deaths

Collision Resistance@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 188 points –
Top UN court stops short of ordering cease-fire in Gaza and demands Israel contain deaths
apnews.com
60

You are viewing a single comment

Like I said to the other user, only 2% of voters consider Israel the most important issue. It's not gonna swing 80k people against a candidate as controversial as Trump.

I am also really not buying that genocide accusation (and shouting the word doesn't help your case). It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

So far, percentage-wise Israel has killed fewer Palestinians in Gaza than Hamas did in the communities they invaded. This doesn't bring any life back and every innocent person killed remains a tragedy, but it is important to see the whole picture.

Hamas terrorists killed ten percent of the population of these small kibbutzes within a day, whereas Israel killed 1.2% of the people in Gaza over the course of more than three months (this 1.2% number includes Hamas fighters - it's not just civilians). Keep in mind that Hamas only had access to small arms and drones for the massacres they committed, yet they caused significantly more deaths percentage-wise. To me at least, this signifies a massive difference in both intent and conduct. Israel, with its powerful weaponry, could have killed far more Palestinians if they actually wanted to, if this was their actual intent. They are, in terms of military capabilities, entirely capable of killing every last man, woman and child in Gaza within a few weeks at most (or a few seconds, if they don't mind breathing in some fallout). Yet they clearly didn't.

If genocide really was their intent, then why are they still issuing at the very least some warnings to civilians? Why did they protect an evacuation corridor with their lives, against Hamas attacks on both IDF soldiers and the civilians trying to flee? This doesn't make any sense.

The long-term genocide accusation makes even less sense. Since 1960, the Palestinian population as increased almost five times - compared to four times the Israeli population. Before this war, Palestinians had a life expectancy that was three years above the average for Arab nations. Neither high birth rates nor high life expectancy are typical of any actual genocide in history.

The very worst one can accuse Israel as a country of is that some politicians in the government coalition are running their mouths wild with revenge fantasies against the entire Palestinian people for the October 7 attack. They should be punished for it, at the very least lose their jobs and ideally their freedom, but the conduct of the IDF as a whole does thankfully not reflect the rhetoric of these politicians. That's not to say that the IDF is perfect, far from it. It is almost a certainty that individual units have committed atrocities. This is an unfortunate reality of war, similar to how e.g. ISAF soldiers have committed atrocities in Afghanistan, even though their mission as a whole was most certainly not. I do believe that the IDF is no different in this regard, that atrocities are the exception, not the rule. The IDF's mission in Gaza is to free hostages and destroy Hamas capability of both ruling the strip and attacking Israel. It is perfectly fine to discuss how this army goes about achieving this goal and how it should best proceed, but it is not fine to throw, despite a complete absence of evidence, the accusation at it that their actual mission is to eradicate all Palestinians.

Wait. You’re in a post about the International Court of Justice condemning Israel for genocidal actions and pretending that it’s not a genocide? Really? Really? Really? Even Jewish Holocaust and genocide scholars are calling it a “textbook case of genocide.

I suppose you think the Iraq war found yellow cake uranium and mobile anthrax trucks. Really?

Point out to me a single line in the judgement where they condemned Israel for genocidal actions, or even directly stated that Israel was pursuing genocidal actions. It’s not there.

Point out to me a single line in the judgement where they condemned Germany for genocidal actions, or even directly stated that Germany was pursuing genocidal actions. It’s not there.

So the Holocaust never happened because the International Court of Justice never ruled it a genocide?

(A) You do know the ICJ didn’t exist during the Holocaust, right? They can’t rule on the actions of states that aren’t party to the ICJ, which by the fundamental nature of how time works includes Nazi Germany.

(B) The fact that the ICJ didn’t declare it a genocide was simply a rebuttal to your unfounded fictitious assertion that they did. How you interpreted that as a statement that genocide doesn’t exist without the ICJ is beyond me.

Lol, the audacity to post objectively and verifiably false information, then when you’re informed that it’s false not acknowledge that fact and deflect to some completely meaningless point about the holocaust, then when you’re informed that that point makes no sense you deflect to a random meme and attach the opinion of some other guy.

You don’t actually care about ‘reality’ like your meme implies. If you did you’d care to actually look at the judgement (like I did before commenting, took me five seconds to find and two minutes to speed parse) before deciding what you wanted the judgement to say to selectively suit your own emotional reality.

You’re losing and you know it. Enjoy your short-lived wins, because time is not on your side.

ICJ RULING ON GAZA GENOCIDE IS A HISTORIC VICTORY FOR THE PALESTINIANS THAT ISRAEL VOWS TO DEFY

So you’re acknowledging that reality doesn’t matter to you, campism does? Well fucking done, you are the literal embodiment of the meme you posted.

The ICJ, also known as the World Court, did not deal with South Africa's main allegation on whether Israel is committing genocide, though it said Friday it would not throw out the case, as Israel requested.

It started out as a simple rebuttal of your false claim. I was expecting a plain ‘oops’, maybe with an edit correction of your claim. Now it’s about how you accuse others of maintaining a selective reality when in fact it’s you who decided to selectively craft your own reality of what the court said.