So the ICJ made it's primary ruling in favour of South Africa and against Israel.



I think it didn't make front page news in the West.

Do you mean that the pro-Palestinians can be happy for such ruling? It didn't demand an immediate ceasefire nor it condemned Israel for committing a genocide.

They're also the ones who have held all the cards for the past 40 years. — Tzeentch

Really! You hold all the cards, yet I bomb your restaurants and buses, murder and outrage your people, wage wars against you, make clear I want you dead and gone and in any pause still fire rockets at you and commit any mayhem I can. And you think you hold the cards? Just who do you think is in control of the chaos, making it happen? If I bash you on the snout with a club, is it the fault/cause/responsibility of your nose? Are you a villain if you defend your nose? Have you nothing at all to say about the depredations by the Palestinians and their friends?

And the consequence of ignoring their role is to reduce them, implicitly making them just vermin and rats, vicious and beyond any possible responsibility, not even worth mentioning. And further implying your own thoughts are suspect or compromised, being victim to clever, unconscionable, very costly propaganda.

But you're right, the Israelis have got to do or die. But what right you to criticize what under necessity they have to do?!

Really! You hold all the cards, yet I bomb your restaurants and buses, murder and outrage your people, wage wars against you, make clear I want you dead and gone and in any pause still fire rockets at you and commit any mayhem I can. And you think you hold the cards? Just who do you think is in control of the chaos, making it happen? If I bash you on the snout with a club, is it the fault/cause/responsibility of your nose? Are you a villain if you defend your nose? Have you nothing at all to say about the depredations by the Palestinians and their friends? — tim wood

Not really. Hamas acts in the way resistance movements always act. Like the Viet Cong, the Taliban, etc. It's a given. Israel won't be the first nation to find that out that moral whinging won't change the facts on the ground.

Israel on the other hand has had, certainly since 1991, the world's most powerful nation on its side and could have solved this situation if it wanted to. Israel of course sabotaged the solutions. Most notably it sabotaged the two-state solution which it was called upon to enact via (legally binding) UNSC resolutions. This sabotage is explicitly mentioned in the relevant UNSC resolutions.

So yes, Israel holds all the cards for a solution, but refuses to act, instead opting for hard liners like Netanyahu in the hopes that one day the Palestinians will magically disappear. Remarkably foolish and worthy of the harshest criticism.

And the consequence of ignoring their role is to reduce them, implicitly making them just vermin and rats, vicious and beyond any possible responsibility, not even worth mentioning. And further implying your own thoughts are suspect or compromised, being victim to clever, unconscionable, very costly propaganda. — tim wood

What a dumb comment.

But you're right, the Israelis have got to do or die. But what right you to criticize what under necessity they have to do?! — tim wood

They're not doing what is necessary. They're digging themselves deeper into a hole with every bomb they drop on Gaza.

Not really. Hamas acts in the way resistance movements always act. Like the Viet Cong, the Taliban, etc. It's a given. Israel won't be the first nation to find that out that moral whinging won't change the facts on the ground. — Tzeentch

Yep, just a day in the park. Why doesn't Tibet do this? Hell, that's even their holy land... unlike Jerusalem which is a third-rate version.

Israel on the other hand has had, certainly since 1991, the world's most powerful nation on its side and could have solved this situation if it wanted to. It of course sabotaged the solutions, most notably it sabotaged the two-state solution which it was called upon to enact via UNSC resolutions. This sabotage is explicitly mentioned in the relevant UNSC resolutions. — Tzeentch

You are really showing your bias now.. Israel had several "dovish" leaders that made peace deals that Arafat and Abbas either rejected or made impossible to take (right of return).

So yes, Israel holds all the cards for a solution, but refuses to act, instead opting for hard liners like Netanyahu in the hopes that one day Palestinians will magically disappear. Remarkably foolish and worthy of the harshest criticism. — Tzeentch

I'm going to. resist. urge. to copy. paste. whole. history of conflict. yet again to show how this is patently false, not even just spin.

So yes, Israel holds all the cards for a solution, but refuses to act, instead opting for hard liners like Netanyahu in the hopes that one day Palestinians will magically disappear. Remarkably foolish and worthy of the harshest criticism. — Tzeentch

Did history not exist before the last twenty years?

They're not doing what is necessary. They're digging themselves deeper into a hole with every bomb they drop on Gaza. — Tzeentch

If you think Hamas will leave Israel alone if it did X, Y, Z measures, you would be wrong. They are not cutting off heads to ensure a peaceable solution around the table for tea. And like the Viet Cong, they want ALL of it, if they can, and will make it hard for Israel to live REALLY, not just in isolated incidents. They want to GROW how bad they can make it, not stop it once they gained a bit. But keep defending their means and ends.

Did history not exist before the last twenty years? — schopenhauer1

We can go back further if you'd like.

Israel's refusal to enact and sabotage of UNSC resolutions towards a two-state solution started all the way back in 1967.

Or would you like to talk about the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948?

Israel's refusal to enact and sabotage of UNSC resolutions towards a two-state solution started all the way back in 1967. — Tzeentch

3 No's

and could have solved this situation if it wanted to. Israel of course sabotaged the solutions. — Tzeentch

Never the Palestinians any responsibility; never did they reject anything. Maybe neither wanted/wants a two-state solution. Your blinders are on and working very well. Answer this: to your mind, in your own thinking, never mind anyone else, do the Israelis possess any right to be where they are?

And again we agree - I agree with you: existential necessity mandating equal rights and for my money in one country, not two.

do the Israelis possess any right to be where they are? — tim wood

Of course. This has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist.

What I'm laying out is how Israel can continue to exist, or, if it stays on the road it is on, can cease to exist.

I like Israel, actually. I visited Israel, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank as part of an academic tour in 2019. It was very eye-opening, and despite the fact that I like the country, it was also clear to me that the situation there as it is now simply cannot persist.

do the Israelis possess any right to be where they are?
— tim wood
Of course. — Tzeentch

Then a decent respect for those rights ought call for the inclusion of some acknowledgement of them and the attacks on them. For the rest, I agree.

Edit: As to the VC and the Taliban, the VC do not belong in this group - a separate discussion. But in glossing over who and what they are - e.g., the Taliban - you implicitly excuse them. And excusing without cause is imo a great mistake. Aesop covered this in his fable of the frog and the scorpion crossing the river, and no doubt a story even older than that.

Living through a genocide happening before our eyes, with 10000+ children dead, and yet apologists think this time it’s an exception.

History will view them poorly. — Mikie

Why didn't the ICJ demand a cease-fire?

Then a decent respect for those rights ought call for the inclusion of some acknowledgement of them and the attacks on them. For the rest, I agree.

Edit: As to the VC and the Taliban, the VC do not belong in this group - a separate discussion. But in glossing over who and what they are - e.g., the Taliban - you implicitly excuse them. And excusing without cause is imo a great mistake. Aesop covered this in his fable of the frog and the scorpion crossing the river, and no doubt a story even older than that. — tim wood

Resistance movements are simply a result of an occupation. Their tactics are tried and true, and yes, brutal. Sadly, brutal are also the tactics of the occupier and this is certainly true for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

I'm not excusing anyone. I'm just not playing the game of who gets to claim the moral high ground. I think both sides have acted awfully, and at some point it is just a vicious cycle where there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" anymore. There are a lot of innocent people stuck in the cross-fire though.

But it is clear that Israel controls Greater Israel and millions of Palestinians live under Israeli occupation - not the other way around.

Resistance movements are simply a result of an occupation. — Tzeentch

I don't think it has to be that way. It is certainly cultural as much as anything. Why don't we see this type of violence currently in Tibet, for example?

Hell, even people in South America simply move when they are dissatisfied with the situation where they're from.. Most coming to the US, which of course causes its own problems. Many from Syria and other countries left due to conditions and are now residents, in countries like the Netherlands.

I am not trying to say, "Why don't the Palestinians move". That would be a strawman, just that cutting off heads and such isn't the only way to react. Clearly, this is chicken-or-egg phenomenon. Netanyahu essentially has co-opted the strongman approach of his Arab neighbors.. You stay in a region too long, you start becoming like the region a bit.

But almost like a college student who has posters of Che Guevera on the wall, it would be a simplistic oversimplication and perhaps even tacit consent, to merely handwave these kind of brutal reactions to one's perceived political enemy at the level of Hamas. That's my point.

Hamas suicide bombed the shit out of Israel and they voted in "strongmen". Who would have thought! If my house was bulldozed or if my grandfather was kicked out of territory, with my sense of morality as it stands now, I would damn sure NOT be cutting heads off people or supporting such causes.

As I said, I'm not playing the game of who gets to claim the moral high ground.

It goes without saying that neither side deserves any prizes in that regard.

It goes without saying that neither side deserves any prizes in that regard. — Tzeentch

Which is where I basically agree with Friedman's analysis as I see how the Israeli government has carried out the campaign. That's why I'm advocating looking at it as a system.. And I think we are but we are both saying that the other side should turn the key.

I get Israel's priority to NOT have Hamas anymore, but I of course get the Palestinian (non Hamas) who don't want to be in the midst of this current round of conflict.

What isn't discussed very much is why Israel chooses one strategy over another, and what it's advantage is, even if they don't care about world opinion. I have yet to have any real military analysis. I've been waiting for that, sans people's bias and moralizing.

In regards to my last comment, a while ago I found this video from, out of all places, an Azerbaijanian-based news agency, that gave one of the better military overviews of the situation. One must keep in mind this was from months ago, so could be a bit dated with all the developments. However, it pretty much lays out why it is so difficult in terms of the lay of the land, if you will, and what it must face:

It's impossible to say what is going on on the ground in Gaza currently, but I've been skeptical about Israel's chances of success, and prior to the the start of Israel's operation the military analysts I have heard were skeptical too. Today most seem in agreement that Israel has not yet managed to deliver a serious blow to Hamas.

But ultimately Hamas is a small fish, and Israel is in a no-win situation.

If it manages to crush Hamas, it's only a matter of time until another organisation takes its place.

Even if Israel does the unthinkable and ethnically cleanses Gaza, it will not solve its problems.

Do you mean that the pro-Palestinians can be happy for such ruling? It didn't demand an immediate ceasefire nor it condemned Israel for committing a genocide. — neomac

First of all, do notice what the South African charge was.

Far better than it being thrown out of court, as Israel wanted it to do. And far better than nothing.

And also likeliest: the American lawyer (or the German on) likely wouldn't have gone against their governments that are against a ceasefire (only perhaps talking about humanitarian pauses etc.).

The UN continues to beclown itself.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has fired 12 aid workers accused of involvement in the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel, and has launched an investigation. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said yesterday that he was "horrified" by the allegations and that those found to have been involved would be referred for potential criminal prosecution.
Germany, Australia, Finland, Italy and the U.K. joined the U.S. and Canada today in suspending funding to the agency. UNRWA employs about 13,000 Palestinians and runs schools and shelters and distributes aid across Gaza.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna135991

Why didn't the ICJ demand a cease-fire? — RogueAI

Cool, now we suddenly care about the world court.

They should have. The reason is they’re playing it extremely cautiously. What’s more telling is that they haven’t completely dismissed the charges. It’s almost as if 10,000 dead babies is hard to ignore.

It's almost like they don't really believe a genocide is going on.

The UN continues to beclown itself.

This is inevitable in such a caldron of apartheid and oppression. To characterise this as the UN as a sympathiser, or colluding with Hamas is a distortion which plays into Israel’s hands.

Now the UN is compromised, a coalition of international funders of aid has pulled out. Who just happen to be Israel’s main Western supporters.

And 2 million Palestinians face imminent starvation.

Israel will be bellicose in its cries blaming others for the genocide now.

What’s the failure?

Simply The West can only see barbarians and the Arab world can only see infidels. Your own description of Hamas portrays them as barbarians, understandably. To Hamas Israel are imperial colonisers, understandably.

There is a massive cultural divide which has been there and reinforced for over a thousand years.

It would be very strange for the ICJ to demand a cease-fire for several reasons.


First, this is an interim ruling - not a definitive ruling. Basically the court has said that, based on the South African case, there is reason to believe Israel may be planning and/or perpetrating a genocide. Had the court felt there was no such indication, the case would have been dismissed.

Second, under the conditions of the Gaza war a decision for a cease-fire should be taken in the UN Security Council, even for so simple a reason as that the UN has no way to impose a cease-fire without overwhelming international support and agreement of the warring parties.

Third, calling for a cease-fire may call into question the court's impartiality.


I think the court was wise in its decision not to call for a cease-fire. The message that the Israeli government may indeed be harboring genocidal intentions towards Gaza is strong enough on its own.

In other words, a big step toward nothing but enough for pro-Palestinians to claim there is reason to believe Israel may be is actually planning and/or perpetrating a genocide?

I'm well aware that this is a problem - perhaps the central problem. Equal rights for Palestinians is not compatible with the idea of a Jewish nation state.

Yes, I agree with your analysis, my pessimism might be slightly greater than yours though.

I come back to the moral argument I laid out a couple of days ago. That the Jewish people have been wronged, exiled for 2,900yrs. The trauma and modification in their culture to adapt to this runs deep.
Somehow they are transferring some of this pain onto the Palestinian people.

Also I refer to my point about the human condition. Human frailty, that we like to think ourselves as moral thinking actors, but so often find ourselves falling back into tribal and survival behaviours which we have evolved in us over millions of years.

In a sense we have reached a pivotal point here in the development of civilisation. Do we finally grow up and act as a global community to help these people out and build a stronger United Nations. Or do we fail again, remain divided, tribal, to sit by and watch the continual spread of failed states across the world.

In a sense we have reached a pivotal point here in the development of civilisation. Do we finally grow up and act as a global community to help these people out and build a stronger United Nations. Or do we fail again, remain divided, tribal, to sit by and watch the continual spread of failed states across the world. — Punshhh

I think there indeed was an opportunity for a real shift, but in my opinion that window has closed

The US during its 30 year period of hegemony simply continued its zero-sum politics, using the "rules-based order" to its advantage, and thereby completely destroying the legitimacy of said rules-based order.*

Now the counterbalancing powers (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) have thrown down the gauntlet and said: "If you're not going to follow the rules, neither will we."

Therefore I think that ship has sailed. The UN will continue to serve an important function as it has, but mostly as a reflection of state power and policy rather than a shaper of geopolitics.


*Note how the US/Israel are now attempting to delegitimize the UN as revenge for the ICJ ruling.

It’s a moral argument. An argument about the concept that the Jewish people have been wronged by the world (civilisation). That the current conflict is a symptom of this wrong and that to resolve this crisis this wrong will need to be put right in some way.

“Modern civilisation” for me is the human world of the last 2000yrs or so. Or perhaps from the point of the exile of the Jews in 800 BC, or thereabouts*. This whole period of civilisation was involved in the wrong and the evolution of the psychology and narrative of the state, or geopolitics of this time. — Punshhh

As I said, I’m more into conceptual analysis, so I can be very picky about semantic ambiguities depending on how claims are worded. In your case, it seems you are semantically equating “world” and “(modern) civilisation”, and take both as referring to some appropriate subject of moral assessment. But first questions that come to mind are: which Mongol, Peruvian, Islander, Lapp, Inca, Sumerian, Japanese, Congolese, Sri Lankan, Cherokee, Gypsy morally wronged Jewish people, if they are part of the world or civilization? Which American, German, Russian, Arab, Iranian, Palestinian, Swiss, French, Spaniard, Irish, Pole did morally wrong the Jewish people exactly, if we are all part of the world or (modern) civilization? How did I myself and you morally wrong the Jewish people exactly, if we are all part of the world or (modern) civilization? How did the Jewish people morally wrong themselves exactly, if they are all part of the world or (modern) civilization?
Folk sociological claims (descriptive or normative) concerning groups (and their members), like "the Jews have been morally wronged by the world or (modern) civilization", are sorts of claims we all often make in political debates. But they are full of ambiguities about their intension and extension (to me, absolutely worth investigating). One remarkable trait of such claims is that they are often provided and/or consumed not just or primarily to the extent they accurately inform us about what they refer to, but to the extent they accurately inform us about who is making such claims. In other words, they are taken as tokens of some social identity. For instance, claiming that Israel is genocidal, may more accurately inform us that the one claiming it is pro-Palestinian, than that Israel is actually genocidal.

If one doesn’t accept this moral argument then we are not anymore addressing the moral argument applicable to this crisis. That’s fine, but we will be ignoring an important facet of the issue. — Punshhh

To me it’s not even clear what such moral argument is supposed to be. Once it is enough clear we can investigate its grounds. So my challenge to you is the following: instead of expecting me to be charitable in understanding your moral argument, try to formulate it as precisely as you can. You’ll eventually see, I think, that’s not easy task at all, to put it mildly.

The problem I would focus on is not the horror of zillions of Palestinian kids exploding under Israeli bombs or the historical traumas of the Israelis, but why we are powerless over this conflict.


Quite, and what do you put it down to?

* I accept that civilisation over the last 2000yrs or so is complex with a dynamic geopolitics and is not confined to The West. However I would argue that this whole period is involved in the development of the current global zeitgeist. — Punshhh

My bad, I should have written “why we feel so powerless over this conflict” (let’s call it “emotional claim”) instead of “why we are powerless over this conflict” (let’s call it “factual claim”). Yet there is a link between the two claims. I would argue that the factual claim is very much related to what you yourself pointed out, the complex dynamic of geopolitics. But the emotional claim best hints at a clash between expectations and reality. So one may wonder about the genesis of such expectations. My suspicion is that we are inadvertently tempted to infer factual expectations (how people would act in certain circumstances) from prescriptive claims (how people should morally act in certain circumstances). And the problem is that if prescriptive claims can fail in guiding our expectations about reality, aren’t our moral beliefs blinding our understanding of reality? So how can we better deal with reality (in a moral sense), if morality doesn’t help us understand reality in the first place? Aren’t we maybe getting the whole point of moral reasoning wrong? I would argue that THIS ISSUE is what makes the complex dynamic of geopolitics morally problematic more than ANY PLAUSIBLE AMOUNT OF cynical exploitative greediness of evil elites, imperialism and military-industrial complex.

It's almost like they don't really believe a genocide is going on. — RogueAI

No.

Yes, I can’t see a global coalition forming at the moment, although it might not be necessary. A coalition of Middle Eastern leaders might be able to get somewhere.

I don’t hold out much hope though as the US, U.K. and EU are holding the line of supporting the side with overwhelming power. And as you say this is not going to help Israel in the long run.

If Israel fails and even evacuates, the trauma on the Jewish people will compound the previous trauma of exile.

The BRICS grouping is evidence of an alternative to US hegemony. However I doubt it will result in much turmoil. I see us moving into a period of three great powers, or fortresses, the US, the EU and China. Who will cooperate to maintain some stability for their members and close allies. With many failed states struggling outside. With climate change becoming the big crisis on people’s minds.