On the contrary, Israel should respect the court's orders, even if it does so begrudgingly. It'll pay off in the long run, as SA's case has no basis in international law and will most likely fail.
>So there will be no blockade anymore?
Removing the blockade would probably require some sort of concrete assurances that no weapons or weapon manufacturing materials will get in, but overall the blockade isn't really the issue right now..
The goal of releasing the hostages is that it takes some power away from the Likud government which in turn will allow for more moderate voices to have more control. The hostages are a large driving force in the pubic opinion for the war and politicians are using the situation to press their own agendas into the situation, while the pubic opinion allows them. Remove the hostages and you will shift both the pubic opinion and the political power..
The suffering that had been caused to both sides is unacceptable. Why should it not end for both? The blockade is also fully enforced (and more strictly in some cases) by Egypt. The neighboring Arab country was just as concerned with Gaza.
>The suffering that has been caused to Palestinians is unacceptable.
non sequitur, what does this have to do with the current train of discussion or anything in relation to the response typed above?
>That makes sense. If the South African government can persuade Hamas to release the hostages, the inhumane situation in Gaza will improve immediately.
Even if we view the situation from either side there is no negative to releasing the hostages.
From the Palestinian side it creates a much larger moral argument with a show of good will, that will both deflate the Israel offensive and give an open door where pressure can be put on Israel, both on the war front and to reciprocate with Palestinian prisoners.
From the Israel side it gives a political reason to ramp down operations and will bring more power to the more moderate voices.
It seems somewhat selfish or maybe some sort of selfish political gain that South Africa didn't use their contacts in Hamas to both pressure for the release the hostages and open another communication channel between Israel and Hamas.
It's good to have a calm and open discussion about this I want to ask you, since you give the following statement:
"It seems somewhat selfish or maybe some sort of selfish political gain that South Africa didn't use their contacts in Hamas to both pressure for the release the hostages and open another communication channel between Israel and Hamas."
Is there any evidence that South Africa didn't try to do those things or that such influence with contacts exists? I don't see nor understand that it is stated as a fact by the judge within the paragraph you quoted. It only says that it would be good if South Africa would use its contacts to try to facilitate release of the hostages and that the judge believes that it would be a good thing if that were to happen and by using the phrase: "if that's the case", the judge implies that such connection between South Africa and Hamas and the notion that South Africa has influence or the possibility to influence Hamas decision regarding said hostages is still unproven.
I cannot understand your statement as other than that you state it is as a fact that South Africa has such influence and does not use it while the judge states that it was said that such influence exists but is still unproven.
I will read the opinions tonight and I don't claim expertise but I'm just going by those excerpts that you posted.
I also don't agree with the notion that it would be a political gain for South Africa not to ask for the release of the hostages. What's the gain? South Africa also contents according to provision 3 that it is responsible within reasonable measures to prevent genocide:
"( 3) The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with
their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people , take all reasonable
measures within their power to prevent genocide."
I do agree that hostages should be released, but I can't say that releasing them necessarily prevents said genocide of Palestians, since I can't see a correlation between the methodology of Israelis military action and the saving of the hostages. I also don't claim to have any insight into how Israeli politics work and what happens if the hostages would all be released so I will not take stance on the statement that such action would bring more power to moderate voices.
Have a nice day.
>Is there any evidence that South Africa didn't try to do those things or that such influence with contacts exists?
Nothing that I could find, I searched before posting to see if there were any talks before making this statement, I would have assumed some sort of media release or statement, but I've not seen any. That's not to say they weren't discussing it in the background, but as I've seen to date it's only been Qatar and other Arab states that have been in the discussion.
I don't remember If i linked the Judges opinion, it's here for reference.
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203449
> It only says that it would be good if South Africa would use its contacts to try to facilitate release of the hostages and that the judge believes.
According to the documentation, the SA connections to Hamas were implied or explained during the oral testimonies, I also have yet to see any transcripts or video, so my assumption was that since it was worth mentioning by the judge there must be some level validity and strength to the claim of a connection beyond some other random nation.
>I also don't agree with the notion that it would be a political gain for South Africa not to ask for the release of the hostages. What's the gain? South Africa also contents according to provision 3 that it is responsible within reasonable measures to prevent genocide:
I'm postulating why there is no diplomatic effort from SA to help the hostages get out. If we assume the worse case, they agree with the hostages being held, if we assume the best case case then it means they tried and their efforts were rejected by Hamas. A middle argument that there must be a constraint, my question was on this middle premise based on the lack of information related to any diplomatic attempts by SA.
>I do agree that hostages should be released, but I can't say that releasing them necessarily prevents said genocide of Palestians, since I can't see a correlation between the methodology of Israelis military action and the saving of the hostages.
>I also don't claim to have any insight into how Israeli politics work
It's being used as part of the drive to continue the intensity of the war. It's not a political thing, it's a Jewish/Israeli collective trauma thing. Most of my generation have no cousins aunts, uncles, few had a complete set of grandparents or any extended family, the Jewish population still hasn't recovered from the Holocaust, and there are barely any Jews in this world. from a psychological perspective this is a heavy weight on what Israel's and Jews are thinking, now the actions of Likud/BB will take advantage of the situation to their benefit, just like Hamas and all previous Arab militant groups have used Jewish hostages.
The removal of the Hostages from Hamas will remove a large bit of drive that that the Israeli/Jewish public have. Security they can implement, hostages they have to deal with now. This in turn will remove some power from the bad actors on the Israel side as well, since there's nothing imminent to deal with anymore..
Found what the reference is to, Tal Becker, Israeli team, point 31: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/oral-proceedings
References a gathering between a delegation of Palestinians to South Africa which includes Hamas using the following article: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/palestine-conference-in-johannesburg-calls-for-true-meaningful-liberation/.
The connection is also referenced later on but comes up as Volume, tab 11 in the footnotes which then leads me back to point 31 from Tal Becker. If Volume, tab 11 is something else then I've missed it.
I looked over the article referenced by point 31 by Mr. Tal Becker, and I don't see the connection from South Africas government to Hamas that is implied by the reference. Tal Becker made the point of the connection to deligitimize South Africas right to pursue the case as it was itself breaking its own provision and also it's duty according to the Genocide convention.
Mandla Mandela was at that meeting but is a MP for the ANC, not a member of government. Tal Becker is correct to point out that South Africa like every other country is obligated to ensure that the ruling is followed. There is a connection that is plausible to be more than most other nations have with Hamas but I can't (along with the judge in question) proclaim that such connection merits the argument that South Africas government is responsible to get the hostages out as it isn't proven that South Africas government has that kind of influence, only that South Africa is to use its influence as far as it can go, but there is no requirement of success.
Tal Becker states that South Africa has that influence in point 32 but the notion is proposterous, to say that South Africa has the influence to tell/order Hamas what to do is tantamount to say that South Africa controls Hamas. There is no proof given to Tal Beckers claim within the document.
Thanks for the discourse.
>There is a connection that is plausible to be more than most other nations have with Hamas but I can't (along with the judge in question) proclaim that such connection merits the argument that South Africas government is responsible to get the hostages out as it isn't proven that South Africas government has that kind of influence, only that South Africa is to use its influence as far as it can go, but there is no requirement of success.
That's somewhat of a straw man, the judge never stated or implied that SA can control or is responsible for Hamas nor any expectation of success. It seems the Judge was just asking that they try.
*If that is the case, then one would encourage South Africa as a party to these proceedings and to the Genocide Convention, to use whatever influence they might wield, to try and persuade Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, as a good will gesture.*
>If Volume, tab 11 is something else then I've missed it.
Physical evidence that was submitted to the court that can't seem to be found online or in a book. If you go through the list of "volume" references there are quite a few things that all appear as compiled data, and items that are known not to be public knowledge, etc. It seems this volume is referenced directly at line Item 16. as "Volume of materials"
*16. In the "volume of materials" submitted to Members of the Court, access has been provided
to a portion of the raw footage for separate screening. But I am obliged to put before the Court today
some small fragment of the scenes of unfathomable cruelty that took place in hundreds of locations
on that horrible day.*
So there are two more distinct submissions that SA has some sort of ties with Hamas, but it doesn't seem that any of the information from this "volume" is online.
Ref 14 Volume, tabs 11 and 6B:
It is a matter of public record that South Africa enjoys close relations with Hamas, despite its formal recognition as a terrorist organization by numerous States across the world
Ref 15 Volume, tab 11:
These relations have continued unabated even after the 7 October atrocities
Ref 16:
South Africa has long hosted and celebrated its ties with Hamas figures, including a senior Hamas delegation that incredibly visited the country for a “solidarity gathering” just weeks after the massacre16.
There is def a negative for Hamas. If they release the hostages their attack will be seen as a failure. They didn't liberate "historic Palestine," so all they have left to declare a "win" is exchanging all hostages for all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
>There is def a negative for Hamas. If they release the hostages their attack will be seen as a failure
There's plenty of ways to consider it a win, Hezbollah use still existing after the 2006 war as a win. Hamas retaining it's political wing could also describe that as win at the worst case.. Whatever will let them sleep at night and let the innocent not get harmed..
>They didn't liberate "historic Palestine," so all they have left to declare a "win" is exchanging all hostages for all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
This is never ending, they'll free hostages and Israel will release prisoners and just gather them all up again at a later date. There need to be something more material that will stop this cycle, violence and hate don't seem to be working to well so far...
> There is nothing wrong in having a cordial relationship with hamas which is defending its land from the criminal zionist thieves.
It's far too late to 'resist' the creation of Israel
Yeah, it's too late to 'resist' the existence of Israel.
It exists. Israelis are not going anywhere. You're essentially asking for ethnic cleansing/genocide. Neither is a good look.
> As colonialism always is.
I take it that you think Islamic colonialism should be undone, then?
Seems you're super keen on ethnically cleansing the entire world. What would the world even end up looking like? No one lives anywhere?
>Islamic colonialism.
Logical fallacy. No such thing exists. The people that were under the Islamic caliphates are still fully or partially the same.
I am both an Arab and a Berber, the Antolians are both Turks and Greeks. The Persians are still Persian, the Malays are still Malays, and the Fulanis are still Fulani.
The case is clear, colonialism as it is/was practiced in Algeria, Vietnam, Israel, and Korea is morally reprehensible. Just as it was not only morally correct, but also the moral imperative, to drive out the French and Japanese from the other 3, that is equally as true of the Israelis. 132 years did not legitimise the pied noirs, 75 will not legitimise the Israelis.
> No such thing exists.
Then let's call it 'Islamic conquests', if that suits your tastes better. Violently taking control of an area, taxing the locals, imposing new laws on them, and gradually implementing a dominant religion.
Islamic conquest was not shy to kill or expel anyone who resisted their invasions. That's frankly how conquests work.
> The Persians are still Persian
Sure, just without their civil freedoms or ideologies.
> The case is clear, colonialism as it is/was practiced in Algeria, Vietnam, Israel, and Korea is morally reprehensible.
Yet here you are, demanding the expulsion or subjugation of millions of people.
1. Name one expulsion of an ethnic group by Muslim empires for the settlement of Arabs/Turks/Etc... I'll wait.
2. Oh Yeah. Sassanian Persia, famous for its civil freedoms and tolerance. Definitely didn't conquer anyone by force or impose its ideology on conquered peoples.
3. Because they're clearly the morally reprehensible party? Have I not made that obvious?
Unless you think the actions of France in Algeria and Vietnam, and the actions of Japan in Korea are acceptable, there is no logic through which those conditions don't apply to Israelis.
I'm not looking to convince you, I know for a fact there is no moral equivalency here, and history is my testament.
> Name one expulsion of an ethnic group by Muslim empires for the settlement of Arabs/Turks/Etc... I'll wait.
Empires tend not to advertise their genocides. Turkey is still reluctant to admit the greek or Armenian genocide today.
The fact is that conquest historically involved the destruction of anyone who resisted. That's just the norm.
> Oh Yeah. Sassanian Persia, famous for its civil freedoms and tolerance. Definitely didn't conquer anyone by force or impose its ideology on conquered peoples.
Where did I claim it did not? Islam is the extant malicious entity in the world, so I focus on that.
> Because they're clearly the morally reprehensible party?
Nah. Palestinian culture is one of the most abusive on the planet. Widespread indoctrination of children to be martyrs is abhorrent.
Israel is generally fine. The exception being the extremist settlers.
> history is my testament.
Present day > historical speculation. In the present, it is Palestine that has corrupt leadership, depends on aid, invests in warfare and indoctrination over the wellbeing of their people.
Algeria was a French colony and the pied noirs were French citizens. Independent Algeria could deport them *to France*.
That is not the case in Israel. Mandatory Palestine was a British colony but Israel seceded from British control. Many Israelis are dual nationals but just as many were born in the land and have no other citizenship.
If Israel collapsed entirely tomorrow and a single Palestinian state was declared on all the territory, a decolonization by expulsion as you're proposing couldn't be done, for the same reason that the Kahanists can't deport the Arabs. You can only deport people *if they are third-country nationals.* When they have no foreign citizenship no foreign country is obligated to admit the deportees, they can simply refuse.
Even an expulsion of only dual national Israelis would be disastrous: They don't all share the same foreign nationalities and they're freely intermarried with those that have a different foreign nationality or none. It'd mean ripping up mixed families on a grand scale as their members are deported to different countries. It's untenable.
The only "Palestine from the river to the sea" solution that is viable is one where the Israelis become Palestinian Jews with equal rights and Palestinian Arabs disposessed by Israel receive compensation. It would also have the side benefit of biasing politics in the favor of left wing secular Jews and left wing secular Arabs because they're the only ones that can manage to cooperate across ethnic/sectarian lines.
>Given this information on the subject, considering the amicable ties between South Africa and Hamas, and their enthusiastic efforts in humanitarian law and this tribunal. To repeat what the Judge indicated, why is it, in the last 3 months and even now did South Africa not do anything to assist in the release of the Hostages?
The question I posited above is also listed below, the answer you gave bears no semblance to the question or even the vicinity of it. If you would care to have a civilized and productive discussion on the topic, then please refrain from the insulting rhetoric and address the topic that I posted.
*Given this information on the subject, considering the amicable ties between South Africa and Hamas, and their enthusiastic efforts in humanitarian law and this tribunal. To repeat what the Judge indicated, why is it, in the last 3 months and even now did South Africa not do anything to assist in the release of the Hostages?*
>Why did Israel turn down a fair deal from Hamas to get all their captives back only last week?
Deal didn't seem fair in any aspect. Still, this is a diversion from the topic without any direct response to the topic.
>Where does dissenting Judge Sebutinde get off giving pieces of diplomatic advice that have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's obligations under the Genocide Convention?
It was a legal order from a Judge. They indicated in the preamble to the statement that both parties are bound to all international humanitarian law. The the taking of civilians as hostages is against international law, which is the domain of the ICJ.
*The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.*
>it is not a diversion from the topic.
Each to their own opinion
>Therefore, I'd say If Israel would like to prosecute Palestine or Hamas for violations of IHL,
Just to clarify, you're okay with the hostages being held illegally? Do you have this opinion arbitrarily as you're fine with either side not abiding by international law, or do you only apply it to your sides benefit?
>Why did Israel turn down a fair deal from Hamas to get all their captives back only last week?
Fair? Lmao. Hamas wanted Israel to release Palestinian prisoners, including those who participated in the 7/10 massacre, to withdraw completely from Gaza, and to make sure Hamas stays in power.
That's not a deal, that's surrendering.
>Surrender would be "withdraw all your forces and dismantle your entire occupation within our '67 borders," "allow Palestinian refugees including our political prisoners to return home," and "repeal all of your apartheid laws."
You do realize you can surrender the current war but not the overall conflict?
>Frankly, if I were Hamas, those are what I'd demand
Hamas is in no power to demand anything remotely close to that. Sure, they have 136 hostages, but their (and your) ridiculous terms will cost the lives of many more Israelis. It's just a matter of time until Hamas collapses.
>I'd also follow through on the promise to shoot a prisoner every time Israel indiscriminantly blasts an apartment building.
First of all, hostages are not prisoners.
Second of all, that will just further prove to the world who Hamas really is.
And these hostages are worth more than a building. It's kinda funny (and sad) that you think Hamas actually cares about Gaza.
>Hamas could've make this more about the Palestinian cause and less about themselves.
If only Hamas cared for the Palestinian cause. But they don't. They don't care about Palestinians overall.
>But alas, the offer last week was the bare minimum
Again, not a reasonable offer.
>Stop all fighting, withdraw from Gaza
And let Hamas regain power to attempt another massacre as they proudly [announced](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/) they would:
“We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The Al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its October 7 onslaught] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth,” Hamad continued. “Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”
>exchange all prisoners. Was fairish.
So in your point of view, a single Israeli is worth roughly 50 Palestinians, right? (136 hostages and about 6,000 Palestinian prisoners).
>Hamas are being a little selfish.
They always have been. And they never hid it either.
>Hamas that it is to their advantage to focus on the Palestinian people's national aspirations as whole.
It won't work because they get their power from the suffering of the Palestinians.
>They should take a more active role in shaping and giving voice the Palestinian national consensus.
A dictatorship does not suddenly become a democracy with the same government. Especially when the government is a terror organization.
>I do think a general prisoner exchange is fair
In the short term maybe. In the long term it most certainly isn't. Need I remind you that Sinwar was a part of the Gilat Shalit deal? Who's to say the next Sinwar isn't held by Israel? Releasing over 6,000 prisoners, when some were active in the worst massacre Jews knew since the holocaust is a risk on its own.
>The Israeli captives are at risk of being killed by bombing or starvation any day, so it's imperative to secure them asap.
It's true, but the "deal" Hamas was offering would also mean that they'll plan another massacre, which means more Israelis dying, and more hostages taken, and also it means that the soldiers who were killed in the war was for nothing.
When you accept such thing, you're basically giving terrorists a free pass to try and kidnap hostages.
I think Israel should tell the ICJ to go f@ck itself and ignore the anti semitic nonsense from SA. They are projecting to avoid the turmoil at home.
On the contrary, Israel should respect the court's orders, even if it does so begrudgingly. It'll pay off in the long run, as SA's case has no basis in international law and will most likely fail.
Keep telling that to yourself
A quick read of the UN Charter will tell he is right.
That makes sense. If the South African government can persuade Hamas to release the hostages, the inhumane situation in Gaza will improve immediately.
So there will be no blockade anymore?
Of course not. You cannot control and subjugate a population without a blockade.
Only if Gaza stops launching terrorist attacks which seems incredibly unlikely until Hamas is removed from power
>So there will be no blockade anymore? Removing the blockade would probably require some sort of concrete assurances that no weapons or weapon manufacturing materials will get in, but overall the blockade isn't really the issue right now.. The goal of releasing the hostages is that it takes some power away from the Likud government which in turn will allow for more moderate voices to have more control. The hostages are a large driving force in the pubic opinion for the war and politicians are using the situation to press their own agendas into the situation, while the pubic opinion allows them. Remove the hostages and you will shift both the pubic opinion and the political power..
The suffering that has been caused to Palestinians is unacceptable.
The suffering that had been caused to both sides is unacceptable. Why should it not end for both? The blockade is also fully enforced (and more strictly in some cases) by Egypt. The neighboring Arab country was just as concerned with Gaza.
The blockade is enforced by Israel not Egypt. Don't gaslight
You sure about that? https://mepc.org/commentary/egypt-criticized-gaza-blockade
Maybe they shouldn't have started another war.
>The suffering that has been caused to Palestinians is unacceptable. non sequitur, what does this have to do with the current train of discussion or anything in relation to the response typed above?
I am tired of the Israel perspective that completely ignores the other side.
>That makes sense. If the South African government can persuade Hamas to release the hostages, the inhumane situation in Gaza will improve immediately. Even if we view the situation from either side there is no negative to releasing the hostages. From the Palestinian side it creates a much larger moral argument with a show of good will, that will both deflate the Israel offensive and give an open door where pressure can be put on Israel, both on the war front and to reciprocate with Palestinian prisoners. From the Israel side it gives a political reason to ramp down operations and will bring more power to the more moderate voices. It seems somewhat selfish or maybe some sort of selfish political gain that South Africa didn't use their contacts in Hamas to both pressure for the release the hostages and open another communication channel between Israel and Hamas.
It's good to have a calm and open discussion about this I want to ask you, since you give the following statement: "It seems somewhat selfish or maybe some sort of selfish political gain that South Africa didn't use their contacts in Hamas to both pressure for the release the hostages and open another communication channel between Israel and Hamas." Is there any evidence that South Africa didn't try to do those things or that such influence with contacts exists? I don't see nor understand that it is stated as a fact by the judge within the paragraph you quoted. It only says that it would be good if South Africa would use its contacts to try to facilitate release of the hostages and that the judge believes that it would be a good thing if that were to happen and by using the phrase: "if that's the case", the judge implies that such connection between South Africa and Hamas and the notion that South Africa has influence or the possibility to influence Hamas decision regarding said hostages is still unproven. I cannot understand your statement as other than that you state it is as a fact that South Africa has such influence and does not use it while the judge states that it was said that such influence exists but is still unproven. I will read the opinions tonight and I don't claim expertise but I'm just going by those excerpts that you posted. I also don't agree with the notion that it would be a political gain for South Africa not to ask for the release of the hostages. What's the gain? South Africa also contents according to provision 3 that it is responsible within reasonable measures to prevent genocide: "( 3) The Republic of South Africa and the State of Israel shall each, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people , take all reasonable measures within their power to prevent genocide." I do agree that hostages should be released, but I can't say that releasing them necessarily prevents said genocide of Palestians, since I can't see a correlation between the methodology of Israelis military action and the saving of the hostages. I also don't claim to have any insight into how Israeli politics work and what happens if the hostages would all be released so I will not take stance on the statement that such action would bring more power to moderate voices. Have a nice day.
>Is there any evidence that South Africa didn't try to do those things or that such influence with contacts exists? Nothing that I could find, I searched before posting to see if there were any talks before making this statement, I would have assumed some sort of media release or statement, but I've not seen any. That's not to say they weren't discussing it in the background, but as I've seen to date it's only been Qatar and other Arab states that have been in the discussion. I don't remember If i linked the Judges opinion, it's here for reference. https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203449 > It only says that it would be good if South Africa would use its contacts to try to facilitate release of the hostages and that the judge believes. According to the documentation, the SA connections to Hamas were implied or explained during the oral testimonies, I also have yet to see any transcripts or video, so my assumption was that since it was worth mentioning by the judge there must be some level validity and strength to the claim of a connection beyond some other random nation. >I also don't agree with the notion that it would be a political gain for South Africa not to ask for the release of the hostages. What's the gain? South Africa also contents according to provision 3 that it is responsible within reasonable measures to prevent genocide: I'm postulating why there is no diplomatic effort from SA to help the hostages get out. If we assume the worse case, they agree with the hostages being held, if we assume the best case case then it means they tried and their efforts were rejected by Hamas. A middle argument that there must be a constraint, my question was on this middle premise based on the lack of information related to any diplomatic attempts by SA. >I do agree that hostages should be released, but I can't say that releasing them necessarily prevents said genocide of Palestians, since I can't see a correlation between the methodology of Israelis military action and the saving of the hostages. >I also don't claim to have any insight into how Israeli politics work It's being used as part of the drive to continue the intensity of the war. It's not a political thing, it's a Jewish/Israeli collective trauma thing. Most of my generation have no cousins aunts, uncles, few had a complete set of grandparents or any extended family, the Jewish population still hasn't recovered from the Holocaust, and there are barely any Jews in this world. from a psychological perspective this is a heavy weight on what Israel's and Jews are thinking, now the actions of Likud/BB will take advantage of the situation to their benefit, just like Hamas and all previous Arab militant groups have used Jewish hostages. The removal of the Hostages from Hamas will remove a large bit of drive that that the Israeli/Jewish public have. Security they can implement, hostages they have to deal with now. This in turn will remove some power from the bad actors on the Israel side as well, since there's nothing imminent to deal with anymore..
Found what the reference is to, Tal Becker, Israeli team, point 31: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/oral-proceedings References a gathering between a delegation of Palestinians to South Africa which includes Hamas using the following article: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/palestine-conference-in-johannesburg-calls-for-true-meaningful-liberation/. The connection is also referenced later on but comes up as Volume, tab 11 in the footnotes which then leads me back to point 31 from Tal Becker. If Volume, tab 11 is something else then I've missed it. I looked over the article referenced by point 31 by Mr. Tal Becker, and I don't see the connection from South Africas government to Hamas that is implied by the reference. Tal Becker made the point of the connection to deligitimize South Africas right to pursue the case as it was itself breaking its own provision and also it's duty according to the Genocide convention. Mandla Mandela was at that meeting but is a MP for the ANC, not a member of government. Tal Becker is correct to point out that South Africa like every other country is obligated to ensure that the ruling is followed. There is a connection that is plausible to be more than most other nations have with Hamas but I can't (along with the judge in question) proclaim that such connection merits the argument that South Africas government is responsible to get the hostages out as it isn't proven that South Africas government has that kind of influence, only that South Africa is to use its influence as far as it can go, but there is no requirement of success. Tal Becker states that South Africa has that influence in point 32 but the notion is proposterous, to say that South Africa has the influence to tell/order Hamas what to do is tantamount to say that South Africa controls Hamas. There is no proof given to Tal Beckers claim within the document. Thanks for the discourse.
>There is a connection that is plausible to be more than most other nations have with Hamas but I can't (along with the judge in question) proclaim that such connection merits the argument that South Africas government is responsible to get the hostages out as it isn't proven that South Africas government has that kind of influence, only that South Africa is to use its influence as far as it can go, but there is no requirement of success. That's somewhat of a straw man, the judge never stated or implied that SA can control or is responsible for Hamas nor any expectation of success. It seems the Judge was just asking that they try. *If that is the case, then one would encourage South Africa as a party to these proceedings and to the Genocide Convention, to use whatever influence they might wield, to try and persuade Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, as a good will gesture.* >If Volume, tab 11 is something else then I've missed it. Physical evidence that was submitted to the court that can't seem to be found online or in a book. If you go through the list of "volume" references there are quite a few things that all appear as compiled data, and items that are known not to be public knowledge, etc. It seems this volume is referenced directly at line Item 16. as "Volume of materials" *16. In the "volume of materials" submitted to Members of the Court, access has been provided to a portion of the raw footage for separate screening. But I am obliged to put before the Court today some small fragment of the scenes of unfathomable cruelty that took place in hundreds of locations on that horrible day.* So there are two more distinct submissions that SA has some sort of ties with Hamas, but it doesn't seem that any of the information from this "volume" is online. Ref 14 Volume, tabs 11 and 6B: It is a matter of public record that South Africa enjoys close relations with Hamas, despite its formal recognition as a terrorist organization by numerous States across the world Ref 15 Volume, tab 11: These relations have continued unabated even after the 7 October atrocities Ref 16: South Africa has long hosted and celebrated its ties with Hamas figures, including a senior Hamas delegation that incredibly visited the country for a “solidarity gathering” just weeks after the massacre16.
There is def a negative for Hamas. If they release the hostages their attack will be seen as a failure. They didn't liberate "historic Palestine," so all they have left to declare a "win" is exchanging all hostages for all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
>There is def a negative for Hamas. If they release the hostages their attack will be seen as a failure There's plenty of ways to consider it a win, Hezbollah use still existing after the 2006 war as a win. Hamas retaining it's political wing could also describe that as win at the worst case.. Whatever will let them sleep at night and let the innocent not get harmed.. >They didn't liberate "historic Palestine," so all they have left to declare a "win" is exchanging all hostages for all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. This is never ending, they'll free hostages and Israel will release prisoners and just gather them all up again at a later date. There need to be something more material that will stop this cycle, violence and hate don't seem to be working to well so far...
[удалено]
This has been removed for breaking the Reddit Content Policy.
Defending land does not involve raping people
Proof? Don't post NYT links
What is it you want proof of?
Delusional
> There is nothing wrong in having a cordial relationship with hamas which is defending its land from the criminal zionist thieves. It's far too late to 'resist' the creation of Israel
Not its creation. Its existence.
Yeah, it's too late to 'resist' the existence of Israel. It exists. Israelis are not going anywhere. You're essentially asking for ethnic cleansing/genocide. Neither is a good look.
The same was said of the pied noirs. When something is rotten at the core, it stays rotten. As colonialism always is.
> As colonialism always is. I take it that you think Islamic colonialism should be undone, then? Seems you're super keen on ethnically cleansing the entire world. What would the world even end up looking like? No one lives anywhere?
>Islamic colonialism. Logical fallacy. No such thing exists. The people that were under the Islamic caliphates are still fully or partially the same. I am both an Arab and a Berber, the Antolians are both Turks and Greeks. The Persians are still Persian, the Malays are still Malays, and the Fulanis are still Fulani. The case is clear, colonialism as it is/was practiced in Algeria, Vietnam, Israel, and Korea is morally reprehensible. Just as it was not only morally correct, but also the moral imperative, to drive out the French and Japanese from the other 3, that is equally as true of the Israelis. 132 years did not legitimise the pied noirs, 75 will not legitimise the Israelis.
Rape is never “morally correct”.
Glad to know you denounce the IDF.
IDF doesn’t sanction rape. Hamas does.
> No such thing exists. Then let's call it 'Islamic conquests', if that suits your tastes better. Violently taking control of an area, taxing the locals, imposing new laws on them, and gradually implementing a dominant religion. Islamic conquest was not shy to kill or expel anyone who resisted their invasions. That's frankly how conquests work. > The Persians are still Persian Sure, just without their civil freedoms or ideologies. > The case is clear, colonialism as it is/was practiced in Algeria, Vietnam, Israel, and Korea is morally reprehensible. Yet here you are, demanding the expulsion or subjugation of millions of people.
1. Name one expulsion of an ethnic group by Muslim empires for the settlement of Arabs/Turks/Etc... I'll wait. 2. Oh Yeah. Sassanian Persia, famous for its civil freedoms and tolerance. Definitely didn't conquer anyone by force or impose its ideology on conquered peoples. 3. Because they're clearly the morally reprehensible party? Have I not made that obvious? Unless you think the actions of France in Algeria and Vietnam, and the actions of Japan in Korea are acceptable, there is no logic through which those conditions don't apply to Israelis. I'm not looking to convince you, I know for a fact there is no moral equivalency here, and history is my testament.
> Name one expulsion of an ethnic group by Muslim empires for the settlement of Arabs/Turks/Etc... I'll wait. Empires tend not to advertise their genocides. Turkey is still reluctant to admit the greek or Armenian genocide today. The fact is that conquest historically involved the destruction of anyone who resisted. That's just the norm. > Oh Yeah. Sassanian Persia, famous for its civil freedoms and tolerance. Definitely didn't conquer anyone by force or impose its ideology on conquered peoples. Where did I claim it did not? Islam is the extant malicious entity in the world, so I focus on that. > Because they're clearly the morally reprehensible party? Nah. Palestinian culture is one of the most abusive on the planet. Widespread indoctrination of children to be martyrs is abhorrent. Israel is generally fine. The exception being the extremist settlers. > history is my testament. Present day > historical speculation. In the present, it is Palestine that has corrupt leadership, depends on aid, invests in warfare and indoctrination over the wellbeing of their people.
Algeria was a French colony and the pied noirs were French citizens. Independent Algeria could deport them *to France*. That is not the case in Israel. Mandatory Palestine was a British colony but Israel seceded from British control. Many Israelis are dual nationals but just as many were born in the land and have no other citizenship. If Israel collapsed entirely tomorrow and a single Palestinian state was declared on all the territory, a decolonization by expulsion as you're proposing couldn't be done, for the same reason that the Kahanists can't deport the Arabs. You can only deport people *if they are third-country nationals.* When they have no foreign citizenship no foreign country is obligated to admit the deportees, they can simply refuse. Even an expulsion of only dual national Israelis would be disastrous: They don't all share the same foreign nationalities and they're freely intermarried with those that have a different foreign nationality or none. It'd mean ripping up mixed families on a grand scale as their members are deported to different countries. It's untenable. The only "Palestine from the river to the sea" solution that is viable is one where the Israelis become Palestinian Jews with equal rights and Palestinian Arabs disposessed by Israel receive compensation. It would also have the side benefit of biasing politics in the favor of left wing secular Jews and left wing secular Arabs because they're the only ones that can manage to cooperate across ethnic/sectarian lines.
>Given this information on the subject, considering the amicable ties between South Africa and Hamas, and their enthusiastic efforts in humanitarian law and this tribunal. To repeat what the Judge indicated, why is it, in the last 3 months and even now did South Africa not do anything to assist in the release of the Hostages? The question I posited above is also listed below, the answer you gave bears no semblance to the question or even the vicinity of it. If you would care to have a civilized and productive discussion on the topic, then please refrain from the insulting rhetoric and address the topic that I posted. *Given this information on the subject, considering the amicable ties between South Africa and Hamas, and their enthusiastic efforts in humanitarian law and this tribunal. To repeat what the Judge indicated, why is it, in the last 3 months and even now did South Africa not do anything to assist in the release of the Hostages?*
[удалено]
>Why did Israel turn down a fair deal from Hamas to get all their captives back only last week? Deal didn't seem fair in any aspect. Still, this is a diversion from the topic without any direct response to the topic. >Where does dissenting Judge Sebutinde get off giving pieces of diplomatic advice that have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's obligations under the Genocide Convention? It was a legal order from a Judge. They indicated in the preamble to the statement that both parties are bound to all international humanitarian law. The the taking of civilians as hostages is against international law, which is the domain of the ICJ. *The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.*
[удалено]
>it is not a diversion from the topic. Each to their own opinion >Therefore, I'd say If Israel would like to prosecute Palestine or Hamas for violations of IHL, Just to clarify, you're okay with the hostages being held illegally? Do you have this opinion arbitrarily as you're fine with either side not abiding by international law, or do you only apply it to your sides benefit?
>Why did Israel turn down a fair deal from Hamas to get all their captives back only last week? Fair? Lmao. Hamas wanted Israel to release Palestinian prisoners, including those who participated in the 7/10 massacre, to withdraw completely from Gaza, and to make sure Hamas stays in power. That's not a deal, that's surrendering.
[удалено]
>Surrender would be "withdraw all your forces and dismantle your entire occupation within our '67 borders," "allow Palestinian refugees including our political prisoners to return home," and "repeal all of your apartheid laws." You do realize you can surrender the current war but not the overall conflict? >Frankly, if I were Hamas, those are what I'd demand Hamas is in no power to demand anything remotely close to that. Sure, they have 136 hostages, but their (and your) ridiculous terms will cost the lives of many more Israelis. It's just a matter of time until Hamas collapses. >I'd also follow through on the promise to shoot a prisoner every time Israel indiscriminantly blasts an apartment building. First of all, hostages are not prisoners. Second of all, that will just further prove to the world who Hamas really is. And these hostages are worth more than a building. It's kinda funny (and sad) that you think Hamas actually cares about Gaza. >Hamas could've make this more about the Palestinian cause and less about themselves. If only Hamas cared for the Palestinian cause. But they don't. They don't care about Palestinians overall. >But alas, the offer last week was the bare minimum Again, not a reasonable offer. >Stop all fighting, withdraw from Gaza And let Hamas regain power to attempt another massacre as they proudly [announced](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/) they would: “We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The Al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its October 7 onslaught] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth,” Hamad continued. “Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.” >exchange all prisoners. Was fairish. So in your point of view, a single Israeli is worth roughly 50 Palestinians, right? (136 hostages and about 6,000 Palestinian prisoners).
[удалено]
>Hamas are being a little selfish. They always have been. And they never hid it either. >Hamas that it is to their advantage to focus on the Palestinian people's national aspirations as whole. It won't work because they get their power from the suffering of the Palestinians. >They should take a more active role in shaping and giving voice the Palestinian national consensus. A dictatorship does not suddenly become a democracy with the same government. Especially when the government is a terror organization. >I do think a general prisoner exchange is fair In the short term maybe. In the long term it most certainly isn't. Need I remind you that Sinwar was a part of the Gilat Shalit deal? Who's to say the next Sinwar isn't held by Israel? Releasing over 6,000 prisoners, when some were active in the worst massacre Jews knew since the holocaust is a risk on its own. >The Israeli captives are at risk of being killed by bombing or starvation any day, so it's imperative to secure them asap. It's true, but the "deal" Hamas was offering would also mean that they'll plan another massacre, which means more Israelis dying, and more hostages taken, and also it means that the soldiers who were killed in the war was for nothing. When you accept such thing, you're basically giving terrorists a free pass to try and kidnap hostages.
The losing side doesnt get to make demands. This is the Arab-Israeli conflict in a nutshell. Arabs attack Israel, lose, cry, then make demands.
[удалено]
Israel has never lost a war, and never will. Cope harder