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

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."

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.

>All correct and yet, what should happen? Israel stops their campaign. And then?

And then everyone who wants peace invests lots of money and expertise over a long time to build a modern, prosperous, stable Palestinian society, despite whatever setbacks, attacks, and sabotage occur from within and without.

The only way to have peace is to give people a better option than becoming terrorists.

This is not the approach the West took with ISIS, which involved similarly one-sided fights against terrorist forces [1], nor do I think it's an approach that would have worked. When "everyone who wants peace" doesn't include the people in control of the guns and rockets, who instead want to kill their enemies by any means necessary (and themselves do not respect international law), you can't simply dialogue your way out of it any more than Ukraine could have dialogued their way out of getting invaded by Russia.

The ICJ ruled that Hamas return the hostages unconditionally, but everyone knows that won't happen — Hamas is simply unaccountable. "Everyone who wants peace" can't even get the Red Cross access to the hostages, let alone get them returned. Vague calls for diplomacy with terrorist groups doesn't solve much, which is why people are asking you for specific solutions — it's easy to say Israel should stop fighting, but then: what should it do? How would you actually ensure it doesn't keep getting attacked, repeatedly, as Hamas continues to insist they plan to do?

1: Mosul alone had ~10,000 civilian casualties and that was less densely populated than Gaza City and didn't have tunnels: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/thousands-more-civilia...

And it similarly had about 1MM civilians displaced: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/world/middleeast/mosul-ir...

And that wasn't the end of the fight against ISIS!

A major problem is that the Gazan people have very legitimate problems with Israel, and this leads to a situation in which enough of them become militant to cause serious problems. Solving that seems like it needs a more wholistic approach than simply trying to get rid of the militants at the cost of causing everyone else to have an even bigger beef with Israel.

Sure, and the people of Iraq had very legitimate problems with NATO. Nonetheless the West dismantled ISIS. People can have legitimate grievances without committing mass murder and rape, and in fact I think the mass murder and rape committed by Hamas have been very counterproductive for the lives of Gazans.

What would you have Israel do, that you think would result in it not getting continually attacked by Hamas? Recall that when Israel dismantled its Gazan settlements and withdrew its own citizens at gunpoint nearly 20 years ago — in the hope that would help solve the problem — that's when Hamas took power...

> Nonetheless the West dismantled ISIS

ISIS-K just carried out the worst terrorist attack in Iran (and it was primarily Iran's Q Solemani who dismantled ISIS; later killed by the US Army). Taliban rules Afghanistan again.

> What would you have Israel do, that you think would result in it not getting continually attacked by Hamas?

Negotiate, like they did with PLO before?

> withdrew its own citizens at gunpoint

Yeah, cause settlements are a clear breach of International Law. It was no charity.

> that's when Hamas took power...

Democratically elected, then subsequently undermined and later blockaded.

A supermajority of all Gazans are too ever to have voted (in part because Hamas, which won the 2006 election by throwing PA supporters off rooftops, hasn't allowed another election since). It is not reasonable to say that Gazans elected Hamas.

If Hamas held new elections, they'd likely win easily, because they are so popular with Palestinians in Gaza. From the perspective of the average Gazan, Hamas massacres the hated Israeli oppressor, Fatah collaborates with them. Even Gazans who dislike certain aspects of Hamas rule - the corruption and the ultra-rigid interpretations of Islam – mostly still approve of the October 7 atrocity [0]. I suppose, if Israeli soldiers had killed my father or mother or sister or brother or son or daughter – whatever the rights or wrongs of that military action in the abstract – I might also find it hard to resist that temptation.

The PA refuses to hold new elections in the West Bank, because they know if they do, Hamas will very likely win. The US makes some noises every now and again about demanding the PA to hold new elections, but it is questionable if they really mean it, because they also know what the outcome of any fair election is likely to be, and it is not an outcome they would welcome.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palesti...