What do you think of the ICJ hearings in the court with South Africa against Israel's crimes?

www.youtube.com/live/g2vQ7suQWGg?si=zqvkWqn1jNsXaq9w

I think that if you need the preparation of a court and the attendance of all the people to be in the room to talk about a clear case of Israel's obvious war crimes of genocide, humanity should be ashamed.

I stand with Palestine.

Crucial moment for the ICJ.

If they conclude the siege on Gaza constitutes genocide, this will embarrass the Western regimes funding IDF's billion dollar siege on Gaza. And if they don't, they lose global credibility as an independent arbiter. Something's gotta give though, and soon we'll see.

My prediction is that they will conclude the siege is unlawful and against international humanitarian law, but I don't know if they'll use the word genocide.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/congress-member-pro-israel-donations-military-support
If the judge is the same ad the criminal do you expect anything to be done

@s2numbuq35i said in #2:
> And if they don't, they lose global credibility as an independent arbiter. Something's gotta give though, and soon we'll see.
I really liked this sentence! He makes me see so clearly and soberly how much nonsense it is that people today are not objective and draw the target around the arrow!

I also liked the title that calls for discussion and uses completely objective words "crimes of Israel".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Read about the International Court of Justice, in particular about its jurisdiction:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Jurisdiction

This court hears cases only if both parties (plaintiff and defendant) agree to have their case heard by this court.
If the defendant does not want the claim against him to be heard in this court, then the court has no jurisdiction over the matter.

@devastatingly-hot said in #4:
> I really liked this sentence! He makes me see so clearly and soberly how much nonsense it is that people today are not objective and draw the target around the arrow!
>
> I also liked the title that calls for discussion and uses completely objective words "crimes of Israel".
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Had to read your comment five times to unwrap all the layers of sarcasm that you ironically wrapped around Poe's law with your throw-away account. I don't understand why you want to be so vague, or how my comment would be an example of Poe's law. Wasn't I clear that it is my prediction?

I think I do understand your point that we are walking ahead of the ICJ ruling by saying there are crimes, even before the ICJ has spoken. That's true in a sense, although other authorities and experts around the world have already come to a similar conclusion. In my opinion there is ample proof of criminal acts against the population of Gaza.

@four_legs_good said in #6:
> I am sure Milocevic agreed to be tried.
You are a little confused in the courts)
Milosevic's case was considered by this court:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

PS. Sorry, I'm a little confused too)
The Milosevic case was examined by a special tribunal:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia

@s2numbuq35i said in #7:
> Had to read your comment five times to unwrap all the layers of sarcasm that you ironically wrapped around Poe's law with your throw-away account. I don't understand why you want to be so vague, or how my comment would be an example of Poe's law. Wasn't I clear that it is my prediction?
>
> I think I do understand your point that we are walking ahead of the ICJ ruling by saying there are crimes, even before the ICJ has spoken. That's true in a sense, although other authorities and experts around the world have already come to a similar conclusion. In my opinion there is ample proof of criminal acts against the population of Gaza.
Edit:
Good. I wrote a long text that, following the reaction of the honorable quoted, I realized how wrong I was, so I edited it.
I wrote here the reason why I responded and the reason why I responded with sarcasm and ambiguity. I realized it was unnecessary. I'm sorry for the trouble of reading the words I write, I know today it's a bit difficult to read something a bit long and if you want to say something a bit complex you have to simplify it into an entertaining tiktok video.
If someone does not understand this message, even after the fifth time he reads it, as happened above, that he should not ask me to explain to him, as happened above, because it will not help and he will not understand the explanation either. As happened before, Lakman is quoted (which is the reason for this edit).
Good Day.