Hamas attacks southern Israel

[sumskilz]

Yesterday, the BBC published an article titled "No sign Israel will change course after Gaza ruling," where Paul Adams, the BBC’s diplomatic correspondent, reports: "The government’s former spokesman, Eylon Levy, noted that the presiding judge, Nawaf Salam, was Lebanese and 'couldn’t return home safely"

This scandalous and thinly veiled death threat (in the best Al Capone style), made by an Israeli official and directed at the President of ICJ, certainly did not go unnoticed by anyone, but was conveniently ignored by many.

Setting aside that Levy is not an Israeli official, this is what he actually said according to the BBC:

The government’s former spokesman, Eylon Levy, noted that the presiding judge, Nawaf Salam, was Lebanese and “couldn’t return home safely if he ruled the ‘wrong way’.”

The obvious implication being that if Nawaf Salam didn't rule against Israel, he would be at risk of being killed by Hezbollah. So no, there was never any "scandalous and thinly veiled death threat... made by an Israeli official... directed at the President of ICJ". That's just you spreading disinformation.

That said, Nawaf Salam was always going to rule against Israel. He has a long history of anti-Israel activism and served as Lebanon's ambassador to the UN. That the President of the ICJ presiding over the case is a former ambassador of a country that remains officially at war with Israel is apparently not considered a conflict of interest by UN standards. This is not really surprising considering we're talking about an organization in which Saudi Arabia heads their Women's Rights Forum, Iran heads their Disarmament Conference, and the worst human rights abusers sit on the Human Rights Council (currently China, Sudan, Burundi, Eritrea, and Somalia, just to name a few).

Regarding the ruling itself:

In the decision, read out by the President of the International Court of Justice Nawaf Salam, the operative directive on the Rafah issue states that Israel will, “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.”

The question is whether the qualification – “which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” – applies only to “any other action,” or also to “military offensive.”

In other words, must Israel halt its entire Rafah military operation, or can it continue with that military operation provided it does not constitute a genocidal risk? The formulation and punctuation of this key, complex, three-clause sentence in the ruling seem to allow for both of these — very different — interpretations.

This order was supported by 13 judges against two, but the full decision did not offer clarity on what the order actually means. Whatever their reasons, the judges chose not to formulate a single, short, non-ambiguous sentence stating precisely what Israel was being required to do.

Most of the headlines in Israel and around the world proclaimed that the court had ordered Israel to immediately stop its military operation in Rafah. Ongoing coverage since then has largely maintained this definitive interpretation.

But after the court published the minority opinion documents – by Justice Barak and the court vice president, Julia Sebutinde of Uganda – along with the opinions written by three of the majority judges, it became clear that four of the five judges who addressed this issue consider that Israel is allowed to continue its military action in Rafah, as long as this action does not put the Palestinian population at risk of annihilation, either in full or in part.

This is not the first time in history that judges whose opinions differ try to find a form of compromise that everyone can agree on. Such compromises allow as many judges on the bench to unite around an agreed-upon bottom line.

But in the present case, an unacceptable situation was created, in which the compromise brought about such a vague text that each side is now reading it as it wishes.

Shortly after the announcement of the decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a conference call with some of the senior ministers in his government, as well as legal professionals headed by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.

It seems that in this conversation, the complex nature of the ICJ order was internalized, since later in the evening, the head of Israel’s National Security Council and the Foreign Ministry published a joint statement, in which they echoed the court’s own wording: “Israel did not and will not conduct military activity in the Rafah area that creates conditions of life that could bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinian civilians, in whole or in part.”

In other words, it was a nice piece of political theater. Everyone gets their way. Those hostile to Israel get to scream about Israel ignoring the ruling, while Israel and those supportive of Israel get to proceed as they would have anyway based on the view that Israel had never intended to violate the wording of the ruling in the first place.

This may seem to be a moot point, because Israel was never going to halt its operation in Rafah regardless of any ICJ ruling, but in reality, it's probably the best result Israel could have hoped for under the circumstances. Sure, it will hurt Israel's credibility among some fence sitters, but it's unlikely to change anyone's mind that matters and will be seen as comprising the ICJ's credibility as an impartial institution among those who see Israel's response to October 7th as legitimate.

[Kyriakos]

By now one may wonder how many you mean as "those supportive of Israel". Assuming you mean countries, not nameless people online.

[Siblesz]

In other words, it was a nice piece of political theater. Everyone gets their way. Those hostile to Israel get to scream about Israel ignoring the ruling, while Israel and those supportive of Israel get to proceed as they would have anyway based on the view that Israel had never intended to violate the wording of the ruling in the first place.

This may seem to be a moot point, because Israel was never going to halt its operation in Rafah regardless of any ICJ ruling, but in reality, it's probably the best result Israel could have hoped for under the circumstances. Sure, it will hurt Israel's credibility among some fence sitters, but it's unlikely to change anyone's mind that matters and will be seen as comprising the ICJ's credibility as an impartial institution among those who see Israel's response to October 7th as legitimate.

It won't change anyone's minds that matter? Who matters then? Basically it's three countries in the world against the entire world. The three countries are: the US, the UK, and Israel. Even staunch allies of America, such as Australia and Canada, have already backed off from supporting Israel. The population of the UK is overwhelmingly in support of the Palestinian cause, but it seems like the powers that be either remain completely ignorant of this or they are showing off how little they care about the commoner's public opinion and continue to side with the U.S. on the issue...
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articl...ry-2024-update

But it does beg the question just how long can the Tories continue being in power, especially when there are consistent polls showing that they are on their way out.
https://www.politico.eu/article/unit...eral-election/

So it's only really a matter of time before it's just the U.S. and Israel going it alone against the rest of the world. If you think that these two powers constitute "the only powers that matter", then it seems you have deep-dived into a strange world of complete delusion.

But it doesn't surprise me one bit... these two countries are basically one and the same both in terms of who they are being headed by, and what their politics are... they both have the attitude of ostriches, just placing their heads deep into the ground and pretending that the rest of the world doesn't exist. Until of course it's too late. Eventually they'll get the message, but the damage that is being done both to Israel and the U.S. in terms of reputation will be far beyond what they can just fix up in a few years... if anything, this will mark the end of America's role in the world as a country that anyone looks up to any more... the final nail in the coffin if you will. It'll be hard to take anything seriously from this country anymore, especially now that Trump is guaranteed an election victory. U.S. voters BTW already overwhelmingly support a ceasefire, but again, the powers that be are acting like the oligarchic leaders that they are and they have willfully ignored all calls for ceasefire.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog...-aid-to-israel
Most of the status-quo powers that be of both powers have rejected all calls for ceasefire, and even the small shipment of weapons that was withheld by Biden went through to Israel again without any hindrance. In any case, Putin and China have never looked so good in the eyes of the world.


As for Israel, Netanyahu and his cronies managed to realize every Neo-Nazis wet dream: to make Jews hated again in every corner in the world. To make Israel enemy number one of half the world. I wonder if Israelis are self-hating Jews, and if they are doing it on purpose? Do they have some suicidal psychology that motivates them to alienate the entire world and make everyone hate them? As if the Holocaust wasn't enough, they want another Holocaust to happen? Or are Israeli Jews simply attention whores who are only concerned about themselves and their tiny little world? I am asking in all earnesty... because if I were a Jew and my ancestors have been persecuted and killed and exiled time and again, I would be actually really careful with my attitude, I wouldn't be all cocky and try to make enemies out of the entire world... it is quite interesting all of this, how far a people can be led into a collective suicidal delusion. It reminds me a lot of how the Japanese or Germans acted up until 1945. But the Japanese and Germans of 1945 can be forgiven for their ignorance because they lived in a world that was cut off from the rest of the world. They did not have smart phones, 5G internet and what not, and they didn't have access to free media. The Israelis do have all of these... and yet they choose willingly and collectively to bury their heads in the sand and to ignore the wishes of the entire world for peace and a ceasefire.

[Muizer]

It won't change anyone's minds that matter? Who matters then? Basically it's three countries in the world against the entire world. The three countries are: the US, the UK, and Israel. Even staunch allies of America, such as Australia and Canada, have already backed off from supporting Israel. The population of the UK is overwhelmingly in support of the Palestinian cause, but it seems like the powers that be either remain completely ignorant of this or they are showing off how little they care about the commoner's public opinion and continue to side with the U.S. on the issue... but it does beg the question just how long can the Tories continue being in power, especially when there are consistent polls showing that they are on their way out.
https://www.politico.eu/article/unit...eral-election/

So it's only really a matter of time before it's just the U.S. and Israel going it alone against the rest of the world. If you think that these two powers constitute "the only powers that matter", then it seems you have deep-dived into a strange world of complete delusion.

While Israel has lost a lot of Western support over the attack on Rafah, I think it's the showdown in Israeli internal politics over the "Day After" plan that's going to be decisive.

if I were a Jew and my ancestors have been persecuted and killed and exiled time and again, I would be actually really careful with my attitude, I wouldn't be all cocky and try to make enemies out of the entire world...

No, you'd have learnt that you'll have enemies regardless of whether you're "careful with your attitude" or not.

[Kyriakos]

While Israel has lost a lot of Western support over the attack on Rafah, I think it's the showdown in Israeli internal politics over the "Day After" plan that's going to be decisive.

No matter, it can always fall back on the support it has outside the western world

[Siblesz]

No, you'd have learnt that you'll have enemies regardless of whether you're "careful with your attitude" or not.

When you are in a precarious situation and bound to have enemies on all sides, the idea of a sane foreign policy is how to befriend more neutral actors, or how to pacify possible hostile enemies, not how to make enemies out of everyone around you. Israeli foreign policy as it stands is as if this little boy with a tantrum just goes around wrecking everything that he tried to build up for decades in just a few months. Just a year ago Israel was in good terms with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, Russia.... now that's all gone in cinders and basically Israel is standing alone with the U.S. and against basically everyone. Those who are neutral in Europe have remained so because they are part of NATO and basically puppets of the U.S. military-industrial system, but it would be an understatement to say that people in France and the UK are not hostile to what Israel has been doing in Gaza.

[Muizer]

When you are in a precarious situation and bound to have enemies on all sides, the idea of a sane foreign policy is how to befriend more neutral actors, or how to pacify possible hostile enemies, not how to make enemies out of everyone around you.

Just pointing out that the 'If I were a Jew' part of your argument is wrong. It's the exact opposite: if there is any people in the world who have historical reason to question the common sense of what you say, it's the Jews. Israel is founded on the notion that ultimately Jews can rely on nobody except themselves for security. It's an understandable defensive attitude has been transferred from their being a minority in European host nations to being a nation surrounding Arabs states.

The way I see it, it's necessary to understand this, but I agree any well of historical good-will is about to dry up. The very, very least Israel needs to demonstrate urgently is that it has no plans to remain in Gaza either as a civil or a military authority. And there needs to be an operational plan to go with it. No more stalling. And that means it's crunch-time for Netanyahu because he's going to have to defy the far right creeps he's been leaning on.

[PointOfViewGun]

Israel's primary goal was not to be a safe haven for Jews but to be located in the Levant. They had other more viable options for that. Current Israel is a product of obsession.

[Siblesz]

Just pointing out that the 'If I were a Jew' part of your argument is wrong. It's the exact opposite: if there is any people in the world who have historical reason to question the common sense of what you say, it's the Jews. Israel is founded on the notion that ultimately Jews can rely on nobody except themselves for security. It's an understandable defensive attitude has been transferred from their being a minority in European host nations to being a nation surrounding Arabs states.

The way I see it, it's necessary to understand this, but I agree any well of historical good-will is about to dry up. The very, very least Israel needs to demonstrate urgently is that it has no plans to remain in Gaza either as a civil or a military authority. And there needs to be an operational plan to go with it. No more stalling. And that means it's crunch-time for Netanyahu because he's going to have to defy the far right creeps he's been leaning on.

I'll put it a different way. Imagine you are playing a faction in a computer game. You are outnumbered 10-1 and you are not of the same religion of the tribes who surround you. You are not welcomed in the area because you are basically an intruder in a game that has been going on for quite a long time with a variety of players involved (you could argue that you are actually the oldest intruder in the area, but in any case you haven't been playing here since Emperor Hadrian kicked you out of the game in the second century A.D.)

This time around though things are looking up for you… after more than a thousand years of being suppressed and persecuted and dispersed, you finally find safety and a stronger political clout in a more progressive Western Europe that has become more secular. With your finances secured after basically heading the banking of Europe for the last five centuries, you gain a strong influence on the powers that be. You start out slow, befriending a dying empire (the British Empire), and start arming yourself to the teeth in order to secure the lands that this empire has bequethed to you (Balfour Declaration). You manage to carve out a country for yourself from the collapse of the empire, and manage to evict the original inhabitants of the land as well as massacre a bunch in the process of doing so (the Nakba).
Eventually you face the wrath of everyone around you because of your militancy, but you outwit your enemies time and again, and through a combination of superior strategy, luck, and American armaments, you defeat them in battle time and again (1967, 1973 wars). This military superiority make your enemies respect you, until eventually you gain the complete backup of the greatest power in the world (the USA). However, you enemies are getting wiser, and you encounter more difficulties the third time around once you find out that the enemy has becoming fervently ideological against you and has started using guerilla warfare against your war-machine (1982/2006 Lebanon War against Hezbollah).

As to foreign relations, you have matured into a more flexible country and you have slowly managed to start having diplomatic relations and trade some of your former enemies (Egypt/Jordan). In this regard, eventually things are going so good for you in trade and diplomatically that you even manage to make peace with another one of your formal mortal enemies (Saudi Arabia).

As for internal affairs, you don't really know how to deal with a hostile internal population of Arabs, the original inhabitants of the land (the Palestinians), and after the failure of talks that were not facilitated by your own stubbornness and hubris (the Camp David Accords), and by your hostile enemies' aggressive displays of constant dissaproval (Third and Second Intifada), you decide that what is best is for them is to wall them off into little pieces that you can monitor and control, basically making them second-class citizens.. In the process of doing so, you create the world's last apartheid state where the local Palestinians are unable to move around at will. Their resentment for you obviously grows, and you lead a large chunk of the resistance into following a radical religious group that turns their dogma into an apocalyptic religious hate for you. More shocking still is that you yourself like this development and you even fund and encourage this new radical group, because it means that you are playing one part of the enemy against the other (PLO vs. Hamas split). Slowly slowly you also start partitioning the bigger chunk of the divided occupied land and have settlers that are loyal to your cause to build homes there.

As for you, even though you started out as a mostly secular player of the game, you have undergone a change since then. You have become more religious, more emotionally driven, more resentful, more possessive of the power you control, and more corrupt. The democratic institutions that you built up a few decades ago have seen themselves confronted by a more autocratic way that is hell bent to assert dominance over every aspect of society. Protests by the original inhabitants are dealt very harshly and sometimes even lethally. Protests by your own citizens are dealt quite aggressively as well. Free media has been progressively curtailed, you have created a school system that forces children to believe in a dogmatic and religious version of your own narrative in order to secure their minds into your own military state. But you play a double game in order to appease the half of the population that pretends to enjoy freedom, allowing them same-sex unions, transgenders into the military and what not. Meanwhile, your young people have become progressively more religious, and your politics have reflected that more right-wing, religious trend.

As for international relations, things have changed. The superpower that you were relying on (the USA) has been waning in power after a series of serious defeats and setbacks in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan). They have basically withdrawn from the area because of how badly they handled their foreign wars and occupations. No one wants them back, but more importantly, the people of that far away empire are sick of foreign wars. But you successfully managed to infiltrate this foreign empire's government and are basically directing its foreign policy, even though the people of that empire no longer want you to do so. Slowly slowly the situation becomes unsustainable however, and you are faced with the possibility that this country's foreign policy will rebel against your dominion.
So what would do you do in such a situation, when you can no longer rely so much on the complete support of that superpower? Would you alienate every single friend and possible ally in such a precarious situation? Would you entice your former enemies to take up arms against you yet again? I hope not.... that would make you a sh!tty strategist, would it not?

When you understand how intricate the history of all the players behind what has been going on, you start to understand just how precarious Israel's position really is... the thing that Israel needs the least is to alienate itself and again face a 1967 or 1973 war type scenario. But it seems inevitable that if they don't back off, there will be a united Arab front against Israeli militancy. It will only be a matter of time before the Arab world unites against Israel. Already you have seen the Iranians and the Saudis making overtures, becoming friendlier. You have also seen Russia and China's growing prominence in the area. You have also seen growing local discontent in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia about their regime's apparent complacency to the genocidal regime of Netanyahu. It is also a matter of time before these three countries either change their policy to be openly aggressive against Israel, or that they undergo some kind of internal revolution. And then you also have a new player: Turkey... Turkey was not involved in the Six Days War or in the 1973 War.. it is a different Turkey now, however, much more religiously inclined to defending the interests of Islam than the Turkey of Ataturk that we once knew... Turkey's military is no joke. Turkey's military alone might be strong enough to face Israel head on without any allies.

So basically, the point is: Imagine if one day, Israel has to face Turkey, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the backing of Russia and China together... Europe will not come to its rescue, and the U.S. might feel obliged to, but it might also find itself under a new management that favors isolationism over confrontation...

So what I mean is, that if you were a strategist, you would not risk your entire country's future prospects for what little Israel is gaining from invading Gaza and potentially the West Bank (quite possible also that an intentional destruction of the Al-Aksa mosque by right-wing religious Jewish fanatics is green-lighted by Netanyahu's crazy government, and basically that will just catalyze a big confrontation). When you understand that the people who are managing this war are not strategists, but instead are inspired by a religious motive to take over all of Greater Israel/Palestine, then you understand why it is that they're acting so short-sightedly. Religious fervor and a messianic kind of war for the reclamation of all of historical Israel seems like the order of the day... but that defiance against the will of basically everyone will only mean that Israel will be signing their own defeat and possible complete annihilation. Worse yet, with Israel's 200 nuclear bombs, it also might mean the world's possible annihilation. Again, the problem here is psychological... if only the Jews were not Jewish, and the Arabs were not Muslim... if only they played computer games like we do, with a practical interest not to create a self-fulfilling suicidal apocalypse, but just to get the best deal out of the situation that you have been given. Real-politics if you will...

At the end of the day, the best scenario for Israel's future security is peace and a two-state solution, with perhaps an international peace-keeping force based in Gaza and in the West Bank that manages the formal transition for the realization of a Palestinian sovereign state. The worst possible scenario is what they are doing now... sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that reality doesn't exist, making enemies out of everyone and basically threatening their country's very existence.

[Alastor]

At this point and seeing how Israel is ignoring every international court there is in their rampage, while being shielded from serious repercussions in the UN by the US, I'm wondering if Israel's strategy isn't simply to kill them all and come what may. Once they are dead and removed from the equation, they can lay low for a bit and let the consequences, whatever they may be, come. Besides, at that point, no matter what the consequence are, that land will be theirs. Once the Palestinians are out of the equation who would intervene to force the Israelis to back off that land? I can't think of anyone. Once all that is done and the dust settled, they can even feel guilty as a society about it to expunge their conscience, like the US for displacing the native Americans, or Australia for doing the same to the aboriginals, but aside from platitudes and token displays of remorse there would be no real consequences. They would have won.

PS I always chuckle whenever I am in Australia and I hear all these proclamations before events about how "this land is stolen"... well if it's stolen give it back, why aren't you giving it back, if you acknowledge it's stolen? Because, saying it is not for the aboriginals sake, it's to make your colonial, privileged selves feel better. It means nothing, it's just a farce. I can see Israelis behave in a similar manner once the Palestinians are dead and displaced, though likely they wouldn't go as far as to even say that land is stolen.

[Siblesz]

At this point and seeing how Israel is ignoring every international court there is in their rampage, while being shielded from serious repercussions in the UN by the US, I'm wondering if Israel's strategy isn't simply to kill them all and come what may. Once they are dead and removed from the equation, they can lay low for a bit and let the consequences, whatever they may be, come. Besides, at that point, no matter what the consequence are, that land will be theirs. Once the Palestinians are out of the equation who would intervene to force the Israelis to back off that land? I can't think of anyone. Once all that is done and the dust settled, they can even feel guilty as a society about it to expunge their conscience, like the US for displacing the native Americans, or Australia for doing the same to the aboriginals, but aside from platitudes and token displays of remorse there would be no real consequences. They would have won.

PS I always chuckle whenever I am in Australia and I hear all these proclamations before events about how "this land is stolen"... well if it's stolen give it back, why aren't you giving it back, if you acknowledge it's stolen? Because, saying it is not for the aboriginals sake, it's to make your colonial, privileged selves feel better. It means nothing, it's just a farce. I can see Israelis behave in a similar manner once the Palestinians are dead and displaced, though likely they wouldn't go as far as to even say that land is stolen.

If there were no Arab nations surrounding Israel, no UN, and no international outcry, the Israelis would have already booted all of the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank, or killed most of them loooooong ago. Probably by 1950. Again, read what I wrote above. I don't think Muslim nations will just stand idle why Israel butchers their own. It's only a matter of time before Muslim public opinion has reached a fever pitch that their representative governments will act on that public opinion. Now it's only building up. If Israel doesn't back off, there will be a reprisal.

Quoting above,
"When you understand how intricate the history of all the players behind what has been going on, you start to understand just how precarious Israel's position really is... the thing that Israel needs the least is to alienate itself and again face a 1967 or 1973 war type scenario. But it seems inevitable that if they don't back off, there will be a united Arab front against Israeli militancy. It will only be a matter of time before the Arab world unites against Israel. Already you have seen the Iranians and the Saudis making overtures, becoming friendlier. You have also seen Russia and China's growing prominence in the area. You have also seen growing local discontent in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia about their regime's apparent complacency to the genocidal regime of Netanyahu. It is also a matter of time before these three countries either change their policy to be openly aggressive against Israel, or that they undergo some kind of internal revolution. And then you also have a new player: Turkey... Turkey was not involved in the Six Days War or in the 1973 War.. it is a different Turkey now, however, much more religiously inclined to defending the interests of Islam than the Turkey of Ataturk that we once knew... Turkey's military is no joke. Turkey's military alone might be strong enough to face Israel head on without any allies.

So basically, the point is: Imagine if one day, Israel has to face Turkey, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the backing of Russia and China together... Europe will not come to its rescue, and the U.S. might feel obliged to, but it might also find itself under a new management that favors isolationism over confrontation..."

[Ludicus]

The obvious implication being that if Nawaf Salam didn't rule against Israel, he would be at risk of being killed by Hezbollah. So no, there was never any "scandalous and thinly veiled death threat... made by an Israeli official... directed at the President of ICJ". That's just you spreading disinformation.

Nah.
Gaza Israel angrily dismisses UN court ruling

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hardline colleages have reacted with rage, accusing the court of antisemitism and siding with Hamas.

Tell us, who threatens whom? The Israeli government, and no one else.The usual.
ICC's Khan says Israeli threats 'undermining' court's work
US, Israeli officials' 'threats' against ICC promote 'culture of ..

A group of UN experts on Friday expressed "utter dismay" over statements made by US and Israeli officials “threatening to retaliate” against the International Criminal Court (ICC), saying such threats promote a "culture of impunity."

Regarding the ruling itself:

There is no ambiguity. The ICJ issued a ruling, ordering,

1-Israel to halt Rafah offensive
2-open Rafah border crossing for humanitarian assistance
3- also ordered Israel to allow access to the Gaza Strip for investigators.

---

it's unlikely to change anyone's mind that matters

...The UK and the US, sumskilz. Against the rest of the world.
And even then, The walls are closing in on Benjamin Netanyahu as US...
The massacre.



‘No longer justifiable’:European leaders condemn Israel's strike on refugee camp

Israel’s actions are “incompatible with international law,” German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said.

French President Emmanuel Macron said Monday. “These operations must stop … I call for full respect for international law and an immediate ceasefire.”

“Innocent men, women & children dismembered and burnt alive,” Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s former first minister, posted on X. “Bear witness to the images and ask yourself, are you on the right side of history?”

Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto told Sky TG24 that Israel’s warfare is “no longer justifiable,” noting that “with respect to Rafah, all States agreed that Israel had to stop.”

Germany, one of Israel’s staunchest supporters and a key exporter of arms to the country, has also changed its rhetoric…

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares announced Monday that he will seek official support from the other 26 member states for the International Court of Justice’s ruling and take steps to ensure Israel respects its decisions.
“If Israel continues to pursue against that opinion of the court, we would try to take the right measures to enforce that decision,”

Global shock after Israeli airstrike
World leaders condemn Israel.

So, what happened in Israel? Israeli figures mocked Rafah massacre on social media

On Sunday night and Monday morning, Israeli social media was filled with jokes and memes mocking the massacre in Rafah.

Israeli journalist and politician Yinon Magal posted a video on his X account, showing Palestinian medical teams frantically trying to rescue civilians from tents engulfed in flames after the attack.

Magal commented on the video, saying, “The main lighting ceremony this year (is) in Rafah,”, referring to the Jewish holiday of Lag BaOmer, which involves bonfires. Another journalist, Naveh Dromi from i24, shared a video of the blaze with the caption ‘Happy Holiday.

[sumskilz]

There is no ambiguity. The ICJ issued a ruling, ordering,

1-Israel to halt Rafah offensive

Four of the five judges who have commented on it, including the vice president of the ICJ and two who voted in favor of the ruling, have explicitly stated that it does not call on Israel to halt its Rafah offensive. The only judge who has said otherwise is the South African ad hoc judge. The rest have remained silent. It would have been much simpler to use unambiguous grammar, but they did not, which indicates that the ruling was the result of a negotiated compromise needed to achieve a majority.

For example, Judge Nolte who voted in favor of the ruling wrote:

I remain unconvinced that the evidence presented to the Court provides plausible indications that the military operation undertaken by Israel as such is being pursued with genocidal intent. The reason for today’s measure is, in my view, that Israel has not sufficiently demonstrated that it can “enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians” without limiting its current military offensive in Rafah... For this reason, I considered it justified that the Court specify that the Orders indicated on 26 January and 28 March 2024 limit the current military offensive in Rafah as far as it could endanger the rights of the Palestinian people under the Genocide Convention, notably their access to basic humanitarian needs.

While Judge Sebutinde, the vice president of the ICJ wrote:

As explained above, this measure does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only operates to partially restrict Israel’s offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention... I reiterate that Israel has the right to defend itself against its enemies, including Hamas, and to continue efforts to rescue its missing hostages. These rights are not incompatible with its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The situation is similar to UN Security Council Resolution 242 which called for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". It could have been "from all the territories" or at the very least "the territories", but instead the ambiguous grammar was deliberately adopted so that it could be interpreted as "some territories", according to both Lord Caradon and Arthur Goldberg, two authors of the resolution representing the UK and the US respectively. The US and UK wanted to uphold in principle the precedent that territory cannot be acquired by military conquest while at the same time allow determination of the final borders via negotiation.

Of course, Israel would not have completely halted its operation in Rafah regardless of what the ICJ ruled. The ruling was issued on Friday. Hamas launched rockets at Tel Aviv from Rafah on Sunday. The notion that the ICJ could compel a unilateral ceasefire under such circumstances is absurd.

[Kyriakos]

It's also absurd to argue that the reason Israel wouldn't comply was those rockets by Hamas.
Personally I think that some people (I don't mean in the thread, and it wouldn't be fruitful to mean such either, of course) will never stop supporting this butchery by Israel.
We see it today too, with the line that "2 senior Hamas" (assuming we believe this, say we do) justify 45 people being burned alive, including children.

[Alastor]

If there were no Arab nations surrounding Israel, no UN, and no international outcry, the Israelis would have already booted all of the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank, or killed most of them loooooong ago. Probably by 1950. Again, read what I wrote above. I don't think Muslim nations will just stand idle why Israel butchers their own. It's only a matter of time before Muslim public opinion has reached a fever pitch that their representative governments will act on that public opinion. Now it's only building up. If Israel doesn't back off, there will be a reprisal.

On the other hand Israel has been killing Palestinians for decades and said Arab states didn't do much to help. I don't doubt that public opinion there is building up, but will it built up fast enough to matter? If Israel has indeed decided to kill them all and come what may I mean. That is doubtful.

So basically, the point is: Imagine if one day, Israel has to face Turkey, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the backing of Russia and China together... Europe will not come to its rescue, and the U.S. might feel obliged to, but it might also find itself under a new management that favors isolationism over confrontation..."

This doesn't really sound like a very plausible scenario tbh. As we recently saw for example Arab states like Jordan participated in protecting Israel from Iran's reprisals. The possibility that such a disparate coalition against Israel will not only form but actually take action is... hard to imagine.

[Muizer]

I'll put it a different way.

No need to explain to me that the course of action taken by Israel since 7/10 is not a wise one. I wasn't convinced of that from the start and nothing Israel has done since has convinced me otherwise. But it's not the wisdom of Israel's actions that has been the topic of this thread. It's been about justification.

[Ludicus]

Four of the five judges who who have commented on it...

What were the results of the ICJ ruling? Israel was ordered to halt its Rafah offensive and open the Gaza-Egypt crossing for aid. Of the 15 judges on the ICJ panel, only Uganda and Israel opposed the ruling.
Let's not create ambiguity where it doesn't exist. World Court Orders Israel to Halt Its Military Offensive Into Rafah -New York Times

The International Court of Justice on Friday ordered Israel to “immediately” halt its military offensive in the city of Rafah in southern Gaza, dealing another blow to the country as it faces increasing international isolation and a drumbeat of criticism over its conduct in the war.

“The court considers that, in conformity with obligations under the Genocide Convention, Israel must 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,” the court’s president, Nawaf Salam, said in reading the 13-2 ruling.

---

I remember mentioning Al Capone in my last post,

Revealed: Israeli spy chief ‘threatened’ ICC prosecutor over war crimes inquiry-Guardian

“You should help us and let us take care of you. You don’t want to be getting into things that could compromise your security or that of your family.”

---
What happened in Rafah is very simple to describe and cannot be excused by the argument of "Israel's right to defend itself." Two days after the ICJ ordered Israel to suspend its offensive in Rafah, an area that, according to various organizations, had been declared "safe" by the Israeli army for the displaced, was bombed. We are talking about a camp of plastic tents and makeshift constructions occupied by people who have already fled Israel's bombs again and again. According to reports, 45 people died. There are disturbing images of dismembered babies and children, of bloodied women and men fleeing disoriented among the ashes or crying beside the charred remains of their relatives' bodies.

Since the beginning of the war eight months ago, there have been no safe zones for civilians in Gaza, and we have witnessed constant violations of international law by Israel. But this Monday, the global reaction was particularly vehement.
Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly said Ottawa is "horrified" and called for an immediate ceasefire. Japan has called on Israel to obey the ICJ and immediately stop its military operations in Rafah.

The US must choose between supporting Netanyahu's government and respecting the ICJ's decisions. President Biden has said he supports a two-state solution, but as the Irish Prime Minister said in an interview with CNN: "There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. We believe you can’t say you’re in favor of a two-state solution and not recognize the very existence of two states."

Starting today, Spain, Norway, and Ireland will recognize the Palestinian state. The accusations and shameless lies of the Israeli government are ridiculous and execrable. According to the Guardian, Israel's foreign minister, Israel Katz, has stepped up his attacks on Spain's prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, accusing him of being "complicit in inciting the murder of the Jewish people and war crimes"

Japan foreign minister urges Israel to honor ICJ's order
'Ottawa 'horrified' by Rafah attack,' says Canadian FM

"Even in war, there are rules. The images from Rafah are horrific and heartbreaking." She emphasized Canada's stance on Rafah, reiterating that Palestinian civilians have no safe place to go. She further asserted, "The killing of innocent civilians is utterly unacceptable. The International Court of Justice's decisions are binding. The level of human suffering is catastrophic. A ceasefire must be established immediately."

[Muizer]

Tbh I don't see much leeway in the wording of the ICJ unless grammar doesn't count anymore.

[Israel shall] 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;

The use of ", which" instead of " that" signals a non-restrictive clause. So not "only those actions that" but rather "all of those actions because".

[PointOfViewGun]

Tbh I don't see much leeway in the wording of the ICJ unless grammar doesn't count anymore.
The use of ", which" instead of " that" signals a non-restrictive clause. So not "only those actions that" but rather "all of those actions because".

Changing "which" with "that" does not change the meaning of the sentence. It puts forward a quite sensible criteria which no one really opposes. Israel can battle Hamas but not in a way that endangers the civilians in Gaza. Things like hindering much needed aid or bombing living quarters of civilians are what's prohibited.

[Muizer]

Changing "which" with "that" does not change the meaning of the sentence.

It does and so does the presence of the comma. Both point to a non-restrictive clause. To illustrate:

"The door that leads to the garden is open". This specifies a particular door out of multiple doors: a restrictive clause

"The door, which leads to the garden, is open" In this case there's only one door, or we already know which door is being referred to, and it happens to lead to the garden. "which leads to the garden" is merely descriptive.

Non restrictive clauses can be omitted without changing the essence of the sentence, in this example the fact that the door is open. In the case of the ICJ order the essence is apparently that Israel must cease the attack on Rafah and all other activities there.

It puts forward a quite sensible criteria which no one really opposes. Israel can battle Hamas but not in a way that endangers the civilians in Gaza. Things like hindering much needed aid or bombing living quarters of civilians are what's prohibited.

That is what the Israeli's are arguing, but I don't see it. Unless we can assume sloppy language is being used, which seems an odd thing to do in the context of a court order.