Israel-Palestine War: Hamas Breaks Out of Gaza, Israel Responds With Genocide

Israel with US permission to continue its massacre in Gaza... or the US turns a blind eye to stay out of trouble.

"Regardless of the UN vote, Israel can continue what it is doing in Gaza"

"It's a non-binding resolution, so there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas...as I said in my opening statement, it does not represent a change at all in our policy." - he said.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1772397714661068860
 
Does this mean that international law for US and Israel is "non-binding"?

www.rt.com

Netanyahu cancels delegation’s US visit after ceasefire vote

Washington’s decision not to veto UN resolution on truce in Gaza is a “clear retreat” from its consistent position, Netanyahu’s office says
www.rt.com www.rt.com
[...]
The US had concerns about the resolution because it did not condemn the October 7 attack, but did not veto it because its call for a ceasefire and for the release of hostages is consistent with Washington’s policy, Miller said, calling the resolution “non-binding.”
Click to expand...
 
Israel has rejected Hamas' "delusional demands" just to achieve its delusional demands.

www.rt.com

Hamas demands delusional – Israel

The United Nations Security Council has emboldened the Palestinian militants to make unacceptable demands, according to Israel
www.rt.com www.rt.com
[...]
“Israel will not address Hamas’s delusional demands. Israel will pursue and achieve its just war objectives: Destroying Hamas’s military and governmental capacities, release of all the hostages, and ensuring Gaza will not pose a threat to the people of Israel in the future,” Netanyahu’s office said.
Click to expand...
 

Order based on rules or are rules based on my orders?​

The current rule-based order is composed of unwritten laws whose source, consent and legitimacy are unknown.
For most of the world's countries at the UN, these unwritten laws appear to be invoked when they benefit the United States and its partners (Israel, Ukraine) and are not invoked when they do not want to.
In the recent UN Security Council Resolution 2728 which "demands" a ceasefire in Gaza and "demands" the release of hostages and "demands" the unimpeded supply of food and other items to Gaza. The United States has claimed, falsely , that the resolution is not binding.
A tweet from Arnaud Bertrand explaining the convenience of this rule-based order, in this forum all that he writes seems obvious to us, which I consider important because it is part of the awakening of many people:
Since the beginning, it's been obvious that Gaza was in many ways a fight between International Law and the US's "rules-based order".https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1772389118439252045/video/1…This whole episode around the UN resolution is a perfect illustration of this. There is no debate amongst international law scholars that resolutions by the UN Security Council that "demand" certain actions are binding (good explanation by a legal scholar here: https://verfassungsblog.de/why-todays-un-security-council-resolution-demanding-an-immediate-ceasefire-is-legally-binding/…).
In fact resolutions by the council ARE international law, article 25 of the UN Charter clearly states:
"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
Yet the US now argues that the "rule" is in fact different: "It's a non-binding resolution, so there's no impact at all on Israel".
Where is this rule written, that somehow when the UNSC "demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire", it's non-binding and "there's no impact at all" on the warring party?

Nowhere, that's the beauty of the rules-based order: the rules are made-up in the moment to fit the interests of the U.S. and its henchmen, depending on the circumstances. Had the very same resolution, with the exact same language, been adopted for a conflict that the U.S. actually wanted stopped, there's no doubt they'd have argued the exact opposite: that it was binding and the hostilities had to cease immediately. Which goes to show that sometimes the Rules-Based Order does align with international law, when it's in the US's interests to do so. In that sense, Israel's genocide in Gaza is a great revealer because everything about it goes against international law: the mass killing of civilians, journalists, and humanitarian workers; the pre-existing occupation of Palestinian land; the wholesale destruction of Gaza: the hospitals, the mosques, the schools; the torture of prisoners; the deliberate starvation of the population, etc.
So never before have we been able to see in such an obvious way the immense contrast between the rules-based order and international law. And there's no going back, the curtain was pulled: if they hadn't noticed before, the world now knows for sure that the US (and Israel of course) is quite literally a rogue state, operating outside international laws and norms, and outside the most fundamental moral principles.There's no overstating how consequential this is for the integrity of international relations. By doing so, the US effectively destroys the world order it largely created after WW2 because it effectively tells everyone that the set of institutions, rules and norms that underpin it are meaningless.
We're effectively now in a world system where everyone realizes the police, the government, the basic set of beliefs, have become completely corrupted. This changes everything.

What comes next? I think there's no coming back for the U.S. And I think they know this, maybe unconsciously, otherwise they would at least pretend to act for the better good of all. The fact they don't shows they've effectively abdicated ambitions to restore their hegemony: they're now nakedly in it to milk the system for themselves, universal pretentions have gone.Most countries however don't want to live in an "eat or get eaten"/"might makes right" world, without rules or norms. So in time a new system will arise.
The biggest unknowns being: can it arise without a major global war, who will lead the construction of its foundations and how can it be set up so that this time around it is fair for all and respected by all?
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1772818294363521429
 
"Credible and reliable written assurances": The use of US bombs for killing civilians in Gaza is in "accordance with international law".

www.rt.com

US secretly sending more bombs to Israel – WaPo

Washington has reportedly authorized a massive arms package to Israel despite apparent reservations about the upcoming Rafah incursion
www.rt.com www.rt.com
[...]
Washington insists that Israel has provided the US with “credible and reliable written assurances” that any military aid provided has been used in accordance with international law. “We have not found them to be in violation,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller told the press on Monday.
Click to expand...

In Numbers: 175 days of Israeli-American genocidal war on Gaza Strip​

 

I haven't seen it posted, sorry if it's noise:​

Malaysia asks for the abolition of the veto of the 5 permanent UN Security Council members, especially in the case of “situations involving mass atrocity crimes such as genocide”. They also state that this veto system is undemocratic and should be removed in the long run as they violate the very principles the United Nations were built upon.​

 
Liliea said:

Order based on rules or are rules based on my orders?​

The current rule-based order is composed of unwritten laws whose source, consent and legitimacy are unknown.
For most of the world's countries at the UN, these unwritten laws appear to be invoked when they benefit the United States and its partners (Israel, Ukraine) and are not invoked when they do not want to.
In the recent UN Security Council Resolution 2728 which "demands" a ceasefire in Gaza and "demands" the release of hostages and "demands" the unimpeded supply of food and other items to Gaza. The United States has claimed, falsely , that the resolution is not binding.
A tweet from Arnaud Bertrand explaining the convenience of this rule-based order, in this forum all that he writes seems obvious to us, which I consider important because it is part of the awakening of many people:


https://twitter.com/x/status/1772818294363521429
Click to expand...
The two unknowns. Can the new system arise without a mayor global war ? According to the countless revelations about the end times the dreadful answer is no. Will there be a leader likely to instigate the necessary changes for a fairer system to take root ? There is a leader called Putin in our times who appears perfectly capable of carrying out such a mighty change. In my humble opinion that is the main reason why he is so feared and detested and attacked. His foes sense a mighty danger and the West is in spasms. Putin seems willing and able to grab the bull by the horns and the tiger by the tail.
 
ryu said:

I haven't seen it posted, sorry if it's noise:​

Malaysia asks for the abolition of the veto of the 5 permanent UN Security Council members, especially in the case of “situations involving mass atrocity crimes such as genocide”. They also state that this veto system is undemocratic and should be removed in the long run as they violate the very principles the United Nations were built upon.​

Click to expand...
He forgot to say that he was but calling for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in their forum structure and governance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom