Stuff the icj and anyone who stands by it (2 Viewers)

[totally_screwed]

Could all of you shut up? Seriously.
She was on the poverty line growing up, until she made disney at the age of 7. She went through a kidney transplant, suffers from lupus and bipolar disorder. It is so so sad to see how people genuinely hate on others so much without even having any sympathy these days.

you wanted to cancel ariana because she licked a donut when she was high on laughing gas after her dental appointment.

ur joking right

 

[mvrcuriee]

Could all of you shut up? Seriously.
She was on the poverty line growing up, until she made disney at the age of 7. She went through a kidney transplant, suffers from lupus and bipolar disorder. It is so so sad to see how people genuinely hate on others so much without even having any sympathy these days.

you wanted to cancel ariana because she licked a donut when she was high on laughing gas after her dental appointment.

who mentioned ari lmfao, i love her but i personally don’t like Selena’s character period. i think she’s an off person

 

[liamkk112]

politics is too difficult ngl i realised im too uneducated about all these fancy words to properly comment

that being said i think we free palestine but ultimately australia really has no choice in this matter lol

 

[johnnnCENAAAA]

ur joking right

idc the world is too busy fighting about wars when there is ariana slander going on

 

[nsw..wollongong]

ur kidding…

 

[mvrcuriee]

View attachment 42255
ur kidding…

?? i have so many questions but i don’t think they can be answered

 

[totally_screwed]

View attachment 42255
ur kidding…

crybabies

 

[cosmo 2]

who keeps deleting my posts wtf

 

[Aeonium]

who keeps deleting my posts wtf

How do cosmo 2's experiences on Bored of Studies reflect the human condition within 1984?

 

[idkkdi]

“The court did not order a ceasefire, but effectively put Israel on notice over the war.”

The ICJ is the most toothless weapon I’ve ever seen, anyone who says that human rights are not applied selectively are blind. So much for ppl on bos defending Israel for its right to self defence, where r u guys now??

Everyone here seems to have not actually read the ICJ's entire order & reasons and went off topic, so I went and read it.

I think it was quite Palestinian favoured. ICJ seemed to be quite Palestinian leaning even in its consideration of evidence.

What should be noted here is that this was an 'application (for provisional measures)' and not a 'judgement' of whether genocide is occurring. This is simply a matter of legal procedure, and South Africa has yet to proceed to the stage of getting an examination on the merits of the actual case.

Essentially, at this stage, the ICJ is deciding whether or not it should implement protective measures for Gaza, based on if there is plausible infringement of rights under the Genocide Convention (South Africa applied under this convention).

Here, the ICJ found there is plausible violation of rights under the convention and that provisional measures should be implemented. The question then is, at this stage (application), what provisional measures should be exercised to prevent 'irreparable prejudice to the rights caused before the Court gives its final decision.'

The provisional measures chosen by the ICJ directed at Israel can be summarised as - don't kill, don't harm, don't inflict destructive conditions (e.g. blocking water/food), enable basic services/humanitarian aid, don't destroy evidence, punish public genocidal incitement - and provide a report on these measures which is then sent to South Africa.

Now the question is why doesn't the ICJ issue a ceasefire? Simply, it cannot issue one, and clear issues would arise if it did. A ceasefire necessarily requires both sides to stop, and the ICJ does not have jurisdiction over Hamas, which is a non-state actor. ICJ cannot order Hamas into a ceasefire. Similarly, in 1993, Bosnia and Serbia were unable to be ordered into a ceasefire because Bosnian Serbs were non-state actors.

 

[cosmo 2]

correct idkk

it was a pretty favourable ruling towards the plaintiffs idfk what OP is sooking about

ordering a cease fire would also complicate / bias future proceedings

 

[totally_screwed]

I guess this is better than nothing, Israel is notorious for not respecting rules let's think back on the 4-day truce during which they were still killing Palestinians and also the December hostage deal (after which theyve been re-arresting released children). the demand for a ceasefire in this case is not a dramatic one for anyone who thinks it is. curious to see if Israel actually "stops killing and harming" in both Gaza and the West Bank, or just minimises it for a bit while the icj judgement loses its effect

 

[nsw..wollongong]

Everyone here seems to have not actually read the ICJ's entire order & reasons and went off topic, so I went and read it.

I think it was quite Palestinian favoured. ICJ seemed to be quite Palestinian leaning even in its consideration of evidence.

What should be noted here is that this was an 'application (for provisional measures)' and not a 'judgement' of whether genocide is occurring. This is simply a matter of legal procedure, and South Africa has yet to proceed to the stage of getting an examination on the merits of the actual case.

Essentially, at this stage, the ICJ is deciding whether or not it should implement protective measures for Gaza, based on if there is plausible infringement of rights under the Genocide Convention (South Africa applied under this convention).

Here, the ICJ found there is plausible violation of rights under the convention and that provisional measures should be implemented. The question then is, at this stage (application), what provisional measures should be exercised to prevent 'irreparable prejudice to the rights caused before the Court gives its final decision.'

The provisional measures chosen by the ICJ directed at Israel can be summarised as - don't kill, don't harm, don't inflict destructive conditions (e.g. blocking water/food), enable basic services/humanitarian aid, don't destroy evidence, punish public genocidal incitement - and provide a report on these measures which is then sent to South Africa.

Now the question is why doesn't the ICJ issue a ceasefire? Simply, it cannot issue one, and clear issues would arise if it did. A ceasefire necessarily requires both sides to stop, and the ICJ does not have jurisdiction over Hamas, which is a non-state actor. ICJ cannot order Hamas into a ceasefire. Similarly, in 1993, Bosnia and Serbia were unable to be ordered into a ceasefire because Bosnian Serbs were non-state actors.

To be Palestinian leaning “even” in consideration of evidence is contradictory, evidence presented by Israel favoured a ceasefire solution anyways. The ICJ stated that “some” of Israel’s acts fell under the genocide convention, so yes it is indicative of a genocide occurring. Moreso they simply stated that Israel “should” stop blockading humanitarian aid and “should” stop bombing some cities, stating that this is binding but until harsh measures are placed then this means nothing whatsoever.
the issue is that Israel will currently only agree to a month-long ceasefire to get back its hostages, no one seems to talk about how it’s more beneficial to Israel than Palestine. One month gives them more time to gather weapons and strengthen their armies, and mind you in the November ceasefire IDF soldiers still reported killings of south Gazan children.

 

[nsw..wollongong]

I agree with you though. So many people have hope in the ICJ to stop the war, the court doesn’t have that power. You’re right, until Israel and Hamas come to an agreement themselves, the court has no jurisdiction to control a non-governmental resistance group. It’s sad that a lot of ppl had hope that case would change everything, but it’s the truth that the ICJ is practically powerless

 

[nsw..wollongong]

spell it with me now G e n o c i d e

 

[totally_screwed]

what a ugly hoe

 

[idkkdi]

To be Palestinian leaning “even” in consideration of evidence is contradictory, evidence presented by Israel favoured a ceasefire solution anyways. The ICJ stated that “some” of Israel’s acts fell under the genocide convention, so yes it is indicative of a genocide occurring. Moreso they simply stated that Israel “should” stop blockading humanitarian aid and “should” stop bombing some cities, stating that this is binding but until harsh measures are placed then this means nothing whatsoever.
the issue is that Israel will currently only agree to a month-long ceasefire to get back its hostages, no one seems to talk about how it’s more beneficial to Israel than Palestine. One month gives them more time to gather weapons and strengthen their armies, and mind you in the November ceasefire IDF soldiers still reported killings of south Gazan children.

in hindsight, evidence was a badly used term there given ‘evidence’ in legal terms is the stuff that is led during proceedings.

Nah israel argued for the rejection of any provisional measures and for the application by SA to be removed.

and nah icj used ‘must’ in the orders iirc.

the icj placing ‘harsh’ measures (assuming im understanding harsh right here) beyond just ordering israel to stop is not practical. it would probably require ICJ to have its own military which comes with its own ethical and practical considerations.

I agree with you though. So many people have hope in the ICJ to stop the war, the court doesn’t have that power. You’re right, until Israel and Hamas come to an agreement themselves, the court has no jurisdiction to control a non-governmental resistance group. It’s sad that a lot of ppl had hope that case would change everything, but it’s the truth that the ICJ is practically powerless

the ICJ is powerless in a practical sense but that is hardly a bad point. Courts are meant to interpret laws and make judgements not actually carry them out (tripartite separation of powers).

The executive carries out judgements and this separation is for good reason (prevents disproportionate power). the executive here would be the members. for a more useful executive the members would have to be under sth with more power than any group of members. clearly we’re a while way from being unified under one ‘head’ of the world.

like what winston churchill said about democracy (or whatever political system u want to substitute into his quote), the icj is similar. ‘No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time’.

 

[axyx]

I can't believe the UN still exists, it's just a bunch of useless bureaucrats who got rich from preaching human rights that they have no right to enforce. In practicality human rights don't exist, all "rights" are determined by a person's government's decision on what such person is allowed to have. Everyone working in the UN has profited from putting their human rights charter on a pedestal to set a benchmark for society and do nothing about it. What's worse is that people talk about the UN like it's some sort of organisation above a country's jurisdiction even though it's just an international forum. The UN shouldn't try to pretend that it is more than a forum for stupid politicians, a clear example is the fact that North Korea has been genociding its OWN population for decades by starving them to death but this is rarely talked about because the forum, like all types of forums, has moved on to something more recent. The UN does not need the millions in funding it receives, you could literally operate the UN as a website or through Microsoft Teams meetings and still be as effective as it is today. Taxpayers should protest against their money paying for UN workers who are no better than the politicians in parliament who only sit around and yap for 6 figure salaries.

 

[totally_screwed]

cant remember his name but shoutout to the human rights official who resigned from the UN towards the start of the genocide, and put out his resignation letter for the world to see calling out the UN's uselessness during a time where their action was needed most. all bark no bite with these organisations

 

[SylviaB]

Sylvia is islamophobic literally don't bother
Palestinian lives don't matter bcz they're Arabs and majority are muslim

Phobia implies irrationality - but all of my views are rational

But I agree that Palestinian lives don't matter