←back to thread

ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza, stops short of ordering ceasefire

(apnews.com)
517 points xbar | 10 comments | 26 Jan 24 14:35 UTC | HN request time: 2.143s | source | bottom
Show context
locallost ◴[26 Jan 24 21:36 UTC] No.39148816[source]▶
My views on the situation aside, the clearest I saw anyone communicate the issues from a global angle was the former French prime minister Dominique de Villepin

Translated here: https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1718201487132885246

Viewed from the angle of the West, I think the message it needs to avoid isolating itself from the world is very unusual for Western media and important.

Quote:

"Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers."

And

"This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle."

replies(6): >>39148909 #>>39148934 #>>39148966 #>>39149209 #>>39150381 #>>39151344 #
pgeorgi ◴[26 Jan 24 21:43 UTC] No.39148909[source]▶
All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then?

Spend tons of money on iron dome to shoot down the rockets and hope that Hamas won't manage to conduct another massacre, even if "only" half the scope of October 7?

This mess features not one but two parties who currently reject the concept of a cease fire.

replies(10): >>39148950 #>>39149385 #>>39149812 #>>39149917 #>>39149974 #>>39150129 #>>39150783 #>>39151418 #>>39152292 #>>39153568 #
HDThoreaun ◴[26 Jan 24 22:58 UTC] No.39149974[source]▶
Yes, that is exactly what Israel should do. The "dont let gazans interact with Israelis" strategy was icnredibly effective until Israel got soft on border security. Israel easily is capable of ensuring no Gazans ever escape again. The iron dome is largely succesful at keeping Israelis safe, certainly more so than a long term gazan invasion which would open up the Israelis in gaza to terrorist attacks.
replies(2): >>39150167 #>>39150250 #
alexisread ◴[26 Jan 24 23:21 UTC] No.39150250[source]▶
"dont let gazans interact with Israelis" is exactly the definition of apartheid though, unless you're advocating recognising Palestine, and giving them autonomy wrt water, electricity and so on. However the comment "ensuring no Gazans ever escape again." Is rather telling, it implies a recognition that Gaza is effectively a prison - dehumanisation like that fosters this sort of conflict, so really this sort of attitude is far less helpful than say learning from lessons in Japan and Germany post WW2, South Africa post-apartheid and so on.
replies(1): >>39150300 #
HDThoreaun ◴[26 Jan 24 23:25 UTC] No.39150300[source]▶
Gaza absolutely is a prison. Keeping Gazans there is the only way to ensure Israelis safety. Is that unfair? Absolutely, but I dont think Israelis are especially interested in fairness here, theyre interested in their security. You cant compare Gaza to post ww2 countries. Gaza has no economy, and a vastly different culture. There is no path toward peace between gaza and Israel. Not even on the 1000 year time span, because that would require gazan quality of life to improve, and they just dont have the land or resources for that to happen.
replies(2): >>39150619 #>>39155273 #
vcryan ◴[26 Jan 24 23:59 UTC] No.39150619[source]▶
Why are we more concerned about the safety of Israelis than the safety of Palestinians?
replies(2): >>39150668 #>>39152450 #
HDThoreaun ◴[27 Jan 24 00:05 UTC] No.39150668[source]▶
Im concerned with realistic solutions. Israel has all the power here, the reality is that any solution will be one that benefits them, and hopefully palestinians are willing to go along with.
replies(4): >>39150962 #>>39150974 #>>39151158 #>>39151563 #
nerpderp82 ◴[27 Jan 24 00:36 UTC] No.39150962[source]▶
I have spent days researching the history of this. The problem in its entirety is Zionism. The only way for Zionism to remain, is for Israel to be permanently at war. Research Likud, read about Netanyahu, Zionism is the contagion and a Forever War is their answer.

Should the Palestinians have agency and self determination?

replies(1): >>39151185 #
HDThoreaun ◴[27 Jan 24 01:03 UTC] No.39151185[source]▶
> Should the Palestinians have agency and self determination?

It doesnt matter what they "should" have. Israel wont give it to them while they think it would undermine their security, and no one has the ability to force them to.

replies(2): >>39151375 #>>39154128 #
SomeoneFromCA ◴[27 Jan 24 09:49 UTC] No.39154128[source]▶
Of course West has the power. The generational shift in US is very clear - GenZ openly does not want to have anyrhing to do with israel. It will carry on and increase with everry next generation. How are you gonna sustain israel in this kind of enviromnent?
replies(1): >>39155306 #
1. weatherlite ◴[27 Jan 24 13:19 UTC] No.39155306[source]▶
I don't know, it's a good question and it might be unsustainable. Another question is how do you dismantle a country threatened by war and genocidal intentions on all borders , a country that's a nuclear power? What's the end game here - let Israel die and hope the population makes it out OK and that Palestinians happily co exist with Israelis? While some use South Africa as an example where this happened peacefully, there are many more examples where this ended up in a huge massacres - Yugoslavia, Syria, Iraq etc. The realistic best case scenario for Israel is Israel collapsing and the vast majority of the Jews fleeing alive to wherever they can. Other scenarios are Jews getting massacred in huge numbers and even nuclear war.
replies(1): >>39155339 #
2. SomeoneFromCA ◴[27 Jan 24 13:24 UTC] No.39155339[source]▶
The way things are going, the earlier West understands/accepts insustainability of current israel, the less bloody will be the end result. israel could even survive as a Jewish state, but that would require massive diplomatic effort of many forces.
replies(1): >>39155465 #
3. weatherlite ◴[27 Jan 24 13:42 UTC] No.39155465[source]▶
I think better plans need to be made for dismantling a country (that's what you're aiming at right?) in such a volatile part of the world. It can already be extremely bloody, as I said there are genocidal threats against Israel on all borders and Israel as a nuclear power can become genocidal too if it feels its own people are at risk of a second holocaust. Simply crippling Israel's economy so it collapses and hoping for the best sounds like a very bad idea to me.
replies(1): >>39164647 #
4. SomeoneFromCA ◴[28 Jan 24 11:32 UTC] No.39164647{3}[source]▶
Israel is already genocidal. I am not in fact aiming at dismantling israel. What I am saying this will happen anyway, if West won't change its approach.
replies(1): >>39165482 #
5. weatherlite ◴[28 Jan 24 13:23 UTC] No.39165482{4}[source]▶
Is Hamas genocidal in your eyes? Genuinely curious.
replies(1): >>39171049 #
6. wahnfrieden ◴[28 Jan 24 23:37 UTC] No.39171049{5}[source]▶
Only one side is credibly an existential threat to the other
replies(1): >>39172974 #
7. weatherlite ◴[29 Jan 24 05:24 UTC] No.39172974{6}[source]▶
Was Hamas genocidal on October 7th?
replies(1): >>39178401 #
8. nerpderp82 ◴[29 Jan 24 16:40 UTC] No.39178401{7}[source]▶
The first casualty of war is the truth. Many of the atrocious events by Hamas are not as clear cut as originally reported. It looks like the primary goal of Hamas was to capture hostages for a large scale prisoner exchange. The IDF over reacted and to suppress the capture of hostages, killing both Hamas fighters and Israeli citizens. I am describing the situation, not absolving anything or anyone.

Look for the analysis by Scott Ritter on Youtube.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hannibal+protocol+haaretz

I do not think outright murder of civilians was the goal of the October 7th attack.

replies(1): >>39178634 #
9. wahnfrieden ◴[29 Jan 24 16:55 UTC] No.39178634{8}[source]▶
Btw I wouldn’t share Ritter as a source even if you agree with the analysis - he’s compromised financially and ethically
replies(1): >>39207238 #
10. nerpderp82 ◴[31 Jan 24 18:11 UTC] No.39207238{9}[source]▶
Even if your claims are true, he has valuable insights and connects things in ways that others do not. The phrase "wouldn't share" is an interesting way to suppress a viewpoint.

I still watch mainstream news even though it is compromised financially, ethically and politically.