Yerushalmy

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@NeilForPoole https://t.co/BLE4mIxMJB

[Jake Turx, Senior White House Correspondent @JakeTurx]

Here's the biggest plot hole in the "genocide" narrative: we're expected to believe that the most technologically advanced military in the region, using the most powerful weapons in existence, dropped the equivalent of 8.6 nuclear bombs' worth of conventional explosives on one of the most densely populated neighborhoods that's roughly the size of Manhattan in an attempt to exterminate a population with no access to bomb shelters, and yet after roughly a thousand days of war the result was the deaths of about 3.8% of the population, half of them armed terrorists, butchers and kidnappers and the rest human shields and risk-takers who refused to adhere to evacuation orders. And this is supposed to be the worst genocide ever? You have to be very ignorant and very Jew-hating to fall for this goyslop.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@cluedup_1 @NeilForPoole The UN Commission of Inquiry was not a court of law and its decision has been widely condemned as irrational

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

Actually @Greenlouise1840 the ICJ did decide that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was unlawful by 11-4. It chose to regard the right of the Palestinians to self determination higher than Israel’s rights based on the customary rule of uti possedetis juris.
This discussion with ChatGPT explains all in more detail
“The Court did not hold simply that Israel’s occupation was unlawful because it captured the territory in 1967. Rather, it concluded (11 votes to 4) that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had become unlawful because of the cumulative effect of its policies and practices.

The principal strands of the majority’s reasoning were:

the prohibition on acquiring territory by force;
the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination;
Israel’s settlement programme and transfer of its own civilian population into the territory;
the application of Israeli domestic law to large parts of East Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank;
measures which, taken together, the Court regarded as amounting to de facto annexation rather than a merely temporary belligerent occupation.

The Court stressed that occupation law assumes occupation is temporary. It found that Israel’s policies were intended to create “irreversible effects on the ground” and therefore transformed the legal character of Israel’s continued presence.

Your question about uti possidetis juris

This is an important point because it is one of the major criticisms made of the opinion.

The doctrine of uti possidetis juris generally provides that newly independent states inherit the administrative boundaries that existed immediately before independence. It was developed principally in Latin America and later applied extensively in Africa and elsewhere to prevent boundary disputes.

Many scholars who are critical of the ICJ opinion argue something like the following:

At the end of the British Mandate in 1948 there was no sovereign Palestinian state.
Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank in 1950, but that annexation was recognised by only a handful of states and was widely regarded as unlawful.
Consequently, there was no displaced Jordanian sovereignty when Israel captured the territory in 1967.
Therefore, they argue, the Court should have attached much greater significance to the Mandate boundaries and the doctrine of uti possidetis juris, or at least addressed it explicitly.

The Court, however, did not base its reasoning on competing sovereign titles between Israel and Jordan. Instead, it deliberately shifted the legal analysis away from classical territorial sovereignty.

Its approach was broadly:

whatever the unresolved sovereignty question may be,
the West Bank forms part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory,
the Palestinian people possess a right of self-determination over that territory,
and that right prevents Israel from permanently incorporating or annexing any part of it.

Thus the Court effectively treated self-determination, rather than competing state sovereignty, as the decisive principle.

Was Jordan’s prior occupation relevant?

It was certainly raised by Israel and many commentators.

Israel has long argued that because Jordan’s annexation lacked broad international recognition, the West Bank was disputed rather than sovereign Jordanian territory. From that perspective, the situation differs from a classic occupation of another state’s territory.

The ICJ largely sidestepped that argument. It accepted the long-established UN position that the West Bank is occupied territory regardless of the absence of prior recognised Palestinian sovereignty. The Court considered the law of occupation and the Palestinian right to self-determination sufficient to resolve the questions before it.

It is also worth noting that the decision was not unanimous”

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@cosmopolitanman @labourlewis I didn’t accuse @labourlewis of lying even though it is what he was doing. It’s not my style. But I am really really impressed by your response.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

When the Mandate for Palestine ended the territory was not split into two states. There was a UN Partition Plan which Jews accepted but Arabs did not accept, so it was just a plan, not a definitive, legally-binding delineation of new territorial allocations. Israel claimed all of it (as it was entitled to do), fought for all of it and won most of it. Only Jordan among its adversaries was successful in illegally acquiring additional territory for itself all of which was reclaimed in 1967.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@MasterMaliq Jesus never started wars or sought to compel others to follow him. Jesus did not marry a six year old child and consummate the marriage when the child was nine. Jesus did not murder those who opposed him.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

Let’s get it right Clive Lewis MP. The ICJ has not accused Israel of genocide. It is hearing a case brought by South Africa which accused Israel of committing genocide. The ICJ has not said that Israel has committed genocide, only that there is a plausible case that it could. Since most neutral commentators, especially those with military experience, say that Israel has gone out of its way to minimise civilian deaths and injuries, to an extent never before seen in high intensity urban conflict, I think you should be more careful in what you say.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@Lara_0xo Skin

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@Gosleepriya 13kg

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@lady_valor_07 It is real

[Israel Foreign Ministry @IsraelMFA]

A white coat does not erase terrorism.

Palestinian Hamas Colonel Hussam Abu Safiya managed one of Hamas's terror hubs at Kamal Adwan Hospital, exploiting humanitarian resources to support Hamas terrorist operations against Israel.

A terrorist in a white coat is still a terrorist.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

No. Israel are not the Nazis of modern times. Yes, they have totally obliterated Gaza’s built environment but there was a strong military rationale for doing so, due to the massive underground tunnel network and its unknown exits.
And Israel can prove that enough food has been supplied to avoid starvation and problems of fair distribution were caused by Hamas.
It’s easy to demonise Israel as you have done but an accusation of genocide will always fail because there simply never was one, as most neutral observers recognise

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@SqSehrish 110

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@larayapmaaq The discrepancy between the apparent sizes of the two areas is due to distortions caused by the map projection used. All maps of the globe are trying to recreate a spherical object on a flat sheet of paper. All sorts of compromises occur during this process.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@SenSanders Israel says he was a big shot in Hamas. They want to know what he knows

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@TomLondon6 @BBCNews It is entirely appropriate that Israel’s reason for keeping Dr Sufiyah in prison should be stated. The fact that he is a doctor does not weigh greater than his extra-curricular activities.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@Alinavisooo_com You know, if banning halal slaughter in the UK really would result in Muslims leaving for other countries I would support it, even if it meant that kosher slaughter was banned for Jews. But it won’t be banned. And even if it was Muslims would not leave.

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@Seraphinaf5 71

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@Neccccy Muslim

[Yerushalmy @allcods]

@itsmyliffe2004 30