Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Discussions on "the day after" are at an early stage but posturing has begun. Hopefully quick progress will be made to recover Gaza - physically, mentally and politically.

However, I doubt 80% of Gazans would be up for a peace agreement with Israel as they were in 2006.

The Israeli campaign continues to be a strategic failure as well as a humanitarian one.

Actually left/right defines this almost perfectly. White supremacists who hate Jews are a small outlier group of cranks that inhabit message boards like 8chan or maybe Stormfront if that's still a thing. They barely exist IRL. Mainstream conservatives are behind Israel and its right to exist, 100%.

The radical left by contrast really seems to have it in for Israel and by extension the 7+ million Jews who call it their home. I'm not sure who hates them more: Hamas, Iran, ISIS etc or the Western Radical Left.

Ironically, the sense I get is that the neo-Nazis and the Radical Left hate the Jews for entirely opposing reasons. Neo-Nazis, KKK types etc. consider the Jews to be not white (even the Ashkenazi and Russian Jews) while the Left seems to have a problem with Israel and its Jews because they consider Jews to be white (even the Mizrahi, Sephardi, Ethiopian and mixed race Jews). And of course there are the Islamists, who want them all subjugated or killed. Little wonder if the Israelis have a siege mentality and elect parties like Likud.

Yeah I think the failure of International diplomacy is the failure to split out Israel’s right to be militarily prepared and defend itself from terrorism or aggression; from the settler movement, legislation that impinges rights of non Jews in Israel, unwarranted aggression and periodic murder of Palestinian civilians and journalists in the West Bank.

The correct International policy should have been / should be to show a willingness to preserve borders and agreed peace settlements, rather than a blank cheque of support for Israel in everything it does on the idea it is a Western Democratic state. It does not share political systems or values with the EU / U.K. / US.

If the ICJ choose to sanction Israel, that demarcation is made more clear. In that sense the ICJ proceedings have value, even in the knowledge that Israel / US / U.K. will refuse to recognise them.

Although the ICJ being ignored is a net negative for the International order, as is the situation in Gaza as a whole. It all chips away at the West’s moral credibility, and it causes people to increasingly take blunt sides on complex issues. This perpetuates division and extremism; fans the flames of terrorism; while innocent people die or are left to survive in uncertain and inhumane conditions.

It’s all massively depressing and leaves one with a very low confidence in what is to come over the short / medium / long term for the region, but for the world more generally. The West is complicit in what is happening in Gaza, there is no question about it.

Seems that criticism of Israel is no longer anti-Semitism but is indicative of being part of Hamas and/or "terrorist organisations".

Israeli officials have criticised Turkey's actions towards Jehezkel.

Defence Minister Yadav Gallant said Israel had supported Turkey in last year's earthquakes, accusing Turkey of "an expression of hypocrisy".

"In its actions, Turkey serves as the executive arm of Hamas," he said.

In reference to the ICJ case:

In a statement from New York, Israel’s UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan called the case a “new moral low” and said that by taking it on, “the UN and its institutions have become weapons in service of terrorist organisations.”

Israel accused SA of “functioning as the legal arm of the Hamas terrorist organisation”, labelling the International Court of Justice (ICJ) action “one of the greatest shows of hypocrisy in history”.

Lior Haiat, spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the South African lawyers were “Hamas’ representatives in the court”. He added: “South Africa seeks to allow Hamas to return to commit the war crimes, crimes against humanity and sexual crimes they committed repeatedly on 7 October, as its leaders have stated.

I dont think the Turks were ever going to be reasonable with that message, I'm sure the footballer probably knew it would get him the sack. Probably would have helped if he just wrote "free the hostages" since the 100 days message could be associated with the bombing of innocents too.

The Israeli spokespeople continue to be the worst.

Considering how much value the Israeli services have placed on propaganda and how they are very aware of its importance, they always seem to have terrible spokespeople

It's a club decision, not an Association issue. The club declared it was a breach of contract and terminated it, which meant his work visa was no longer valid. They deported him quick smart though - they really made a show of him.

It goes to show though, that only radical voices are heard and extreme actions are now not just allowed, but favoured. There should be room for small gestures in any democratic society but now it's just lying head-the-balls, spit-ranting and finger-pointing everywhere. Everyone I know, with any degree of humanity and common sense is calling for a ceasefire and return to a two-state solution.

We have also heard that the Egyptians warned the Israelis too. You would have to wonder if this entire 'War' suited certain people.

If pro-Palestine campaigners cared about the victims of the October 7th attacks then they would not be accusing Israel of genocide. The Israeli military campaign is aimed at defeating Hamas in the Gaza Strip. If the death toll given by the Gazan health ministry is true then it's still only around 1% of the Strip's population (and thus only a fraction of 1% of the total Palestinian population of both the Strip and the West Bank) and so it can't be genocide. If killing of civilians in a military operation is incidental, not the aim of the operation, then it's still tragic but it's not a war crime. An Israeli woman who was released from Gaza during the pause in hostilities said there are no innocent Palestinians in Gaza - many civilians in Gaza condoned the October 7th attacks, which were the highest number of murders of Jews in one day since the Holocaust.

The vast majority of the people who were murdered in southern Israel on October 7th were Jews. Hamas wants to wipe-out Israel, which is the world's only Jewish-majority country. The Israeli government has no intention of wiping-out the Gazan population - extreme statements by right-wing ministers are not representative of Israeli government policy.

Not all of them were Jews and not all of them were killed by Hamas. Facts matter.

It's interesting that you focus on the Jews - you ok with non Jewish Israeli citizens being killed? Or just the Jews?

Israel using dumb bombs and bombs of 2000lb bombs with a kill radius of 365 metres is not an indication of indiscriminate killing in such a densely populated area?

I'll ask you again seeing as you brought percentages into the mix - what is your red line percentage for civilian deaths? 2%? 5%? 10%?

And I think you'll find more than the right wingers have made genocidal statements - Netanyahu for one. Even President Herzog had a go. Israelis have stated they want to wipe out all Palestinians - they have also used the phrase "from the river to the sea".

You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Why do you think mentioning the Hannibal directive and comments from the prime minister and president etc is splitting hairs?

Care to answer the question on genocide?

I read a report today - I forget where, probably Haaretz. The report said they felt the ICJ would put in place interim measures. I thought that would be the indicative of the ICJ clearly erring towards genocide being proven and ultimately their probable judgment in the years to come. It does not appear to work that way.

I found another article from the Guardian which explains in more detail what the ICJ could do. The paragraphs I quote below piqued my interest inasmuch as it seems (as a layman) that the ICJ can judge that interim measures are required but that in a few year's time, they *could* find an accusation of genocide as unproven.

However, this campaign is still far from over. On the basis of continuing reports of lack of food, water, fuel, medical aid and continuing bombing, the death toll is likely to be much higher than it currently is. In addition to the loss of habitable structures and infrastructure, the overall impact on the Gazan civilian population in, say 12 months time, could certainly cross the genocide threshold in the view of the court.

Bear in mind that the third prohibited act of the convention genocide is distinguished from the genocidal act of killing because the deaths are not immediate (or may not even come to pass), but rather create circumstances that do not support prolonged life. Well over 50,000 Palestinians have been injured. I'd imagine many of those injuries would be life shortening.

By seeking provisional relief under article 74 of the court, as opposed to a definitive ruling, South Africa can lower the threshold of what it is required to prove before the court provides interim relief, and possibly minimise some of the prime facie jurisdictional issues facing the court.

Indeed, South Africa argues “the court is not required to ascertain whether any violation of Israel’s obligations under the genocide convention has occurred.

“Importantly, as previously held by the court, ‘such a finding, which would notably depend on the assessment of the existence of an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the group … [of Palestinians] as such, could be made by the court only at the stage of the examination of the merits of the present case.’

“Instead, ‘what the court is required to do at the stage of making an order on provisional measures is to establish whether the acts complained of … are capable of falling within the provisions of the genocide convention’.

“The court does not have to determine that all of the acts complained of are capable of falling within the provisions of the convention.” It suffices that “at least some of the acts alleged … are capable of falling within the provisions of the convention”.

Equally, the court does not need to ascertain whether the existence of a genocidal intent is the only inference to be drawn from the material before the court, as “this requirement would amount to the court making a determination on the merits”.

South Africa seeks to prove that the measures Israel has taken go beyond self-defence and into the destruction of the Palestinians.

I think Israel will likely declare the war is winding down or moving to a new phase before any interim judgement against them is made. America is probably pushing them to do so too

Israel are already claiming this - reported today that one division of IDF has left Gaza.

And of course, winding down is what they will say they will do. What they will do in reality is another matter.

Regardless of actual military action, Israel is still restricting humanitarian supplies into Gaza.