Malcador Posted March 12 Posted March 12 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68513408 Not a great look for the IDF. Oh wait, they all voted for terrorists so it's ok to treat them this way. 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Zoraptor Posted March 15 Posted March 15 Good news everyone, Israel is planning on putting the 1.2 (or 1.4 depending on source) million people in Rafah into 'Humanitarian Islands*'. How can anyone object to that? Sadly some do though, as with the latest incident of a Jollycopter donating Rainbow Projectiles to another group of 'people' waiting for 'aid' to be 'delivered'. They should be thanking the IDF for trying to do its bit to prevent obesity and overpopulation... *some might think there's a preexisting term for Concentrating civilian population into Camps, but I can't quite put my finger on what that term is. 2
melkathi Posted March 15 Posted March 15 On 3/12/2024 at 6:38 PM, Malcador said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68513408 Not a great look for the IDF. Oh wait, they all voted for terrorists so it's ok to treat them this way. The "they all voted for" is rather ironic coming from "the only democracy in the middle east". Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise).
Malcador Posted March 15 Posted March 15 1 hour ago, melkathi said: The "they all voted for" is rather ironic coming from "the only democracy in the middle east". Hey now, the Sword of the Righteous only cuts one way. 11 hours ago, Zoraptor said: Good news everyone, Israel is planning on putting the 1.2 (or 1.4 depending on source) million people in Rafah into 'Humanitarian Islands*'. How can anyone object to that? Sadly some do though, as with the latest incident of a Jollycopter donating Rainbow Projectiles to another group of 'people' waiting for 'aid' to be 'delivered'. They should be thanking the IDF for trying to do its bit to prevent obesity and overpopulation... *some might think there's a preexisting term for Concentrating civilian population into Camps, but I can't quite put my finger on what that term is. Friend joked the IDF is just helping Palestinians fast for Ramadan. Power of euphemistic language, humanitarian islands. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
HoonDing Posted March 15 Posted March 15 With friends like these, who needs enemies The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Elerond Posted March 15 Posted March 15 8 hours ago, melkathi said: The "they all voted for" is rather ironic coming from "the only democracy in the middle east". Considering that Hamas stopped elections in Gaza after their win and last Palestinian presidential election was in 2005, Israel can say they vote for it and Israel is only democracy in the middle east, although as Israel's current leadership is killing democratic institutions in Israel can we anymore call Israel democracy.
Zoraptor Posted March 16 Posted March 16 (edited) Funny thing about Hamas stopping elections in Gaza is that there haven't been any elections in the West Bank, either. Easy to forget that though, since the people and media who usually evangelise about Middle East Democracy are... somewhat quiet about that fact. (Hamas would actually love elections since they'd win them easily, it's Fatah that desperately doesn't want them- and ironically, given the 'voted in Hamas' justification, support for Hamas in the WB is roughly twice that in Gaza. Mahmoud Abbas and by extension Fatah are seen as Quislings, and Abbas personally has statistically near impossible support, almost late stage Frankie Hollande level- one (1) percent. Fatah's is a bit better, especially without Abbas, but not that much) Edited March 16 by Zoraptor
BruceVC Posted March 22 Author Posted March 22 (edited) https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793118#google_vignette Israel achieved a significant military victory yesterday after a 4 day operation around the Shifa Hospital "The IDF announced on Thursday that in its four-day operation in Shifa Hospital in northern Gaza, it has now killed around 140 terrorists from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as arrested around 650 additional terrorists" " Curiously, the IDF said that all of the Islamic Jihad operatives in the area quickly surrendered, whereas Hamas’s forces were split into two groups, with one large group also surrendering en masse and one large group continuing to resist. Interesting how Hamas is more prepared to fight to the death, hopefully this latest success brings this terrible war to an end. It cant happen soon enough Edited March 22 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
Malcador Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Still have to conquer Rafah before this will end. US resolution for a ceasefire got vetoed, just now, too Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
pmp10 Posted March 22 Posted March 22 23 minutes ago, Malcador said: Still have to conquer Rafah before this will end. That's assuming Israel is really interested in ending anything. I'm sure they see a lot of advantages in turning current situation into a new normal. 1
BruceVC Posted March 22 Author Posted March 22 1 hour ago, Malcador said: Still have to conquer Rafah before this will end. US resolution for a ceasefire got vetoed, just now, too But whats significant about Shifa is the IDF used a much more humanitarian approach to occupy the building, to quote " Around 6,000 civilians were also evacuated, but unlike the November operation when there was no inspection of evacuees, these civilians were evacuated with a careful inspection to catch all of the terrorists" One of the legitimate criticisms towards the IDF has been the heavy handed military approach, instead of sending in ground troops to clear a building like Shifa they have often used bombs and missiles which ends up killing both extremists and civilians and its not an acceptable way to fight this type of urban warfare Boots on the ground, its slower and carries more risk to the IDF but its one of the most reasonable ways to fight in a place like Gaza "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
HoonDing Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Naziyahoo, Xi and Putin are in cahoots to get Drump re-elected so the bloodbath at Rafah will happen no matter what The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Zoraptor Posted March 22 Posted March 22 Bruce doing his best to bring the full Hasbara experience to the forums. 5 hours ago, Malcador said: US resolution for a ceasefire got vetoed, just now, too Typical French, complain that the resolution was too weak on Rafah and sound like they were extremely unhappy with it, but vote yes anyway. 1 1
melkathi Posted March 23 Posted March 23 There was no US ceasefire resolution of course. The resolution called for recognising the importance of a ceasefire, not calling for a ceasefire. Instead it wanted conditions to be created where a ceasefire would be feasible. Basically it was an attempt to block other countries from doing anything against Israel while the US pretends to negotiate. I don't think I have ever seen anything as cynically disgusting as that performance by the USA ambassador to the UN. At least she proves one thing: regardless of skin colour and gender, all people can be pieces of excrement. 2 1 Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise).
melkathi Posted March 24 Posted March 24 Obviously feel free to ignore Malaka Miller, that man couldn't say an honest word to save his life. It is interesting to see the two juxtaposed like this. 1 1 Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise).
Malcador Posted March 25 Posted March 25 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/25/un-gaza-ceasefire-vote Israelis cancelled their trip to the US in response. 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
BruceVC Posted March 25 Author Posted March 25 11 minutes ago, Malcador said: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/25/un-gaza-ceasefire-vote Israelis cancelled their trip to the US in response. This was almost inevitable, Netanyahu has gone too far with the military campaign and dismissed the measures the US suggested so its not a surprise the US didnt veto this latest resolution Its the most clear unofficial statement you can get with overall US displeasure with how Israel is conducting itself "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela
HoonDing Posted March 25 Posted March 25 "Israelis cancelled their trip to the US in response. " how about cutting all aid and see how long they last The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Zoraptor Posted March 25 Posted March 25 (edited) "It's a non-binding resolution, so there is no impact at all on Israel and its ability to go after Hamas" -- John Kirby hmm, does John Kirby think they voted for (abstained from for the US) a General Assembly resolution... Edited March 25 by Zoraptor
Elerond Posted March 25 Posted March 25 Both US and UK claim that wording of the resolution is non-binding, meaning that they will not do anything to enforce it. And they most likely will not will let anyone else either to enforce it. Also resolution does not seem to have any effect on Israel's willingness to continue their rampage, so impact of the resolution will most likely to be next to nothing.
Zoraptor Posted March 25 Posted March 25 (edited) I don't think anyone expects Israel to do anything different, nor for the US to do anything beyond theatrics if they don't. Their relations would have to get catastrophically worse- almost certainly unrealistically so- for them to allow a Chapter VII invoking resolution. It's still a binding resolution though, and under the, heh, Rules Based Order there is no higher authority. The incidences of resolutions being ignored- or interpreted creatively- doesn't actually change that, it just makes the system look farcical. Which is at least in theory something the west ought to be stridently against. In any case, pretty difficult to see how the wording is 'non-binding': Quote 1. Demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, as well as ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs, and further demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain; 'Demands' doesn't leave much room for a non binding interpretation. You can still have John Kirby and press report it as being non binding, and have the US/ Israel ignore it as if it were, of course, but it very obviously is. Edited March 25 by Zoraptor 1
melkathi Posted March 26 Posted March 26 Next in UN Security Council votes: The US votes in favour of a permanent ceasefire but claims the vote doesn't actually count because the ambassador had her fingers crossed behind her back. Unobtrusively informing you about my new ebook (which you should feel free to read and shower with praise).
Elerond Posted March 26 Posted March 26 It is like the summaries of the resolution from news (as UN has not released official version of the resolution yet) says "the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages". For which Hamas said that resolution will allow them to start again negotiations of releasing the hostages. When both sides of the conflict, see that resolution does not have any other effect than how it impacts their political grandstanding in international setting and resolution does not have any consequences for either side or for members of security council, if 'demands' of the resolution aren't met, then resolution becomes non-bidding as it is just set of wishes on paper. There just is not political will in UN or anywhere to make those resolution to be actually binding and every one knows it, which is why UN security council and other institutions have lost all the political power to resolve conflicts that they may have had in past.
Zoraptor Posted March 26 Posted March 26 No. There's a difference between being enforceable and binding. The wording and it coming from the UNSC makes it 100% binding, that's intrinsic, what it requires is a subsequent resolution for enforcement if (when) ignored. John Kirby is being dishonest when he says it isn't binding, because what he means is that the US will not support enforcement- which, of course, as a paid up member of the Rules Based Order he cannot actually say, lest people wonder why the US only wants enforcement of international law against its enemies, not its friends. Same situation with the ICJ. Its decisions are 100% binding, but it has no enforcement mechanism. That is meant to come from the UNSC. 1
Elerond Posted March 26 Posted March 26 2 hours ago, Zoraptor said: No. There's a difference between being enforceable and binding. The wording and it coming from the UNSC makes it 100% binding, that's intrinsic, what it requires is a subsequent resolution for enforcement if (when) ignored. John Kirby is being dishonest when he says it isn't binding, because what he means is that the US will not support enforcement- which, of course, as a paid up member of the Rules Based Order he cannot actually say, lest people wonder why the US only wants enforcement of international law against its enemies, not its friends. Same situation with the ICJ. Its decisions are 100% binding, but it has no enforcement mechanism. That is meant to come from the UNSC. Security council's resolutions are legally binding (although UN charter does not mention term resolution, but uses terms decision and recommendation) and all UN members are agreed to enforce them, when they joined to UN. But without that legal enforcement which all the UN members have agreed on, those resolutions are just same as presidential statements that just decelerated wishes of majority of security council. But when two permanent members of security council say that resolution is non-binding, then the legal binding of the resolution is on thin ice and they will most likely veto its enforcement in UN. ICJ decision are enforced by Security council, but any of the five permanent members have right to veto any effort of enforcement. With Security Council's resolutions security council should have already decided way to enforce the resolution or otherwise security council needs to come up with another resolution where they agree with how they will enforce the previous resolution and then any of the five permanent members can veto any effort of enforcement.
Recommended Posts