5 ms·

ICJ orders Israel to allow aid into Gaza and says blockade had been a breach

19 points by NomDePlum 11mo ago

tguvot 11mo ago
[flagged]
- NomDePlum 11mo ago
  The same vice president under investigation for putting rather odd religious considerations before legal ones: https://www.icj.org/icj-communication-to-the-international-court-of-justice-urging-the-investigation-of-the-courts-vice-president/ https://www.icj.org/icj-communication-to-the-international-c...
  - tguvot 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - NomDePlum 11mo ago
      "I don't like the decision of the court, so I'll promote dissenters positions"
      - tguvot 11mo ago
        did you also raised objections when president of ICJ on cases of Israel had 2 decade history of anti-Israel statement and it seemed like he biased and has conflict of interest ? did you also raised objections when ICJ disregarded it own evidence rules and used twitter posts by NGO as evidence that it used to underpin it rulings ? did you even bother to read dissenters positions to see how court ignores actual evidence in order to come to conclusion ?
mhb 11mo ago
[flagged]
- NomDePlum 11mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788 provides some insight on this.
  - mhb 11mo ago
    Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it. But, now that I have, I'm puzzled by the moderator reasoning given that essentially every Israel/Gaza post violates all the guidelines.
    - tguvot 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - NomDePlum 11mo ago
        Few posts on this subject gain any traction.
    - NomDePlum 11mo ago
      You are welcome. Is interpreting guidelines literally or narrowly worth it? The word itself suggests that might be a mistake. Engagement (or not) is the ultimate judge here I'd suggest. I regularly view the "new" category and see countless examples there that could be considered off topic. Quite often this is true for those that make it to the front page. Hulk Hogan's death being a recent prime example. I personally believe the Israel/Gaza subject is important enough and on topic enough, but can understand the opposite perspective too.
      - mhb 11mo ago
        There are already forums in which engagement is the key metric. The reason this place is valuable is because it has guidelines that prevent it from becoming that. I used to think that that was also the aspiration of the moderators - that they were happy to sacrifice "engagement" for encouraging the audience to which they wanted to appeal. This certainly seems to be their revealed preference when admonishing commenters not to be snarky or mean. Unfortunately, though they see these specks of sawdust clearly, they have no real explanation why the log of divisive, political posts are not dead at submission. Behold the triumph of tone over substance. Maybe my memory is faulty or maybe I was less interested in the off-topic posts, but I thought that, in the past, there used to less bending the knee to the mob and more appealing to the stated guidelines. It is not a community-enhancing action to publish guidelines and make exceptions because it's what a mob wants. That's not what moderating is. If the overriding guideline is engagement, then fine; say that and eliminate the other superfluous ones. It will save a lot of space on the Guidelines page and people coming here will understand that it is r/hn. So: 1. Disallowing posts like these is worth it in order to promote the goals often expressed by the moderators for this site and 2. It does not require a narrow interpretation of the guidelines to conclude that posts similar to these violate all the guidelines. Let's see what happens with this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400
dlubarov 11mo ago
Nowhere in the dispositif does the court find a breach; this is just more misinformation from The Guardian.
- NomDePlum 11mo ago
  The article clearly cites the findings, including breaches of the Geneva convention.
  - tguvot 11mo ago
    article title is already misleading. icj doesn't order israel to do anything
  - dlubarov 11mo ago
    Cites what findings? They don't quote the opinion at all, except for one vague observation. You can read the opinion yourself here [1]. Reminding Israel about its obligations is not a finding of breach. It's more like that ICJ language from a prior opinion reminding Israel about its obligations under the genocide convention [2]. That obviously doesn't constitute a finding that Israel breached those obligations, though that didn't stop the various anti-Israel disinformation outlets from misrepresenting it as such. [1] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/196/196-20251022-adv-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/196... [2] "Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission ..."
ThomasPw 11mo ago
The reporting on this war has certainly made media bias evident. Some media just do not report certain stories at all theguardian is a but one example ....

19 points by NomDePlum 11mo ago

tguvot 11mo ago

[flagged]

NomDePlum 11mo ago
The same vice president under investigation for putting rather odd religious considerations before legal ones: https://www.icj.org/icj-communication-to-the-international-court-of-justice-urging-the-investigation-of-the-courts-vice-president/ https://www.icj.org/icj-communication-to-the-international-c...
- tguvot 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - NomDePlum 11mo ago
    "I don't like the decision of the court, so I'll promote dissenters positions"
    - tguvot 11mo ago
      did you also raised objections when president of ICJ on cases of Israel had 2 decade history of anti-Israel statement and it seemed like he biased and has conflict of interest ? did you also raised objections when ICJ disregarded it own evidence rules and used twitter posts by NGO as evidence that it used to underpin it rulings ? did you even bother to read dissenters positions to see how court ignores actual evidence in order to come to conclusion ?

mhb 11mo ago

[flagged]

NomDePlum 11mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788 provides some insight on this.
- mhb 11mo ago
  Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it. But, now that I have, I'm puzzled by the moderator reasoning given that essentially every Israel/Gaza post violates all the guidelines.
  - tguvot 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - NomDePlum 11mo ago
      Few posts on this subject gain any traction.
  - NomDePlum 11mo ago
    You are welcome. Is interpreting guidelines literally or narrowly worth it? The word itself suggests that might be a mistake. Engagement (or not) is the ultimate judge here I'd suggest. I regularly view the "new" category and see countless examples there that could be considered off topic. Quite often this is true for those that make it to the front page. Hulk Hogan's death being a recent prime example. I personally believe the Israel/Gaza subject is important enough and on topic enough, but can understand the opposite perspective too.
    - mhb 11mo ago
      There are already forums in which engagement is the key metric. The reason this place is valuable is because it has guidelines that prevent it from becoming that. I used to think that that was also the aspiration of the moderators - that they were happy to sacrifice "engagement" for encouraging the audience to which they wanted to appeal. This certainly seems to be their revealed preference when admonishing commenters not to be snarky or mean. Unfortunately, though they see these specks of sawdust clearly, they have no real explanation why the log of divisive, political posts are not dead at submission. Behold the triumph of tone over substance. Maybe my memory is faulty or maybe I was less interested in the off-topic posts, but I thought that, in the past, there used to less bending the knee to the mob and more appealing to the stated guidelines. It is not a community-enhancing action to publish guidelines and make exceptions because it's what a mob wants. That's not what moderating is. If the overriding guideline is engagement, then fine; say that and eliminate the other superfluous ones. It will save a lot of space on the Guidelines page and people coming here will understand that it is r/hn. So: 1. Disallowing posts like these is worth it in order to promote the goals often expressed by the moderators for this site and 2. It does not require a narrow interpretation of the guidelines to conclude that posts similar to these violate all the guidelines. Let's see what happens with this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400

dlubarov 11mo ago

Nowhere in the dispositif does the court find a breach; this is just more misinformation from The Guardian.

NomDePlum 11mo ago
The article clearly cites the findings, including breaches of the Geneva convention.
- tguvot 11mo ago
  article title is already misleading. icj doesn't order israel to do anything
- dlubarov 11mo ago
  Cites what findings? They don't quote the opinion at all, except for one vague observation. You can read the opinion yourself here [1]. Reminding Israel about its obligations is not a finding of breach. It's more like that ICJ language from a prior opinion reminding Israel about its obligations under the genocide convention [2]. That obviously doesn't constitute a finding that Israel breached those obligations, though that didn't stop the various anti-Israel disinformation outlets from misrepresenting it as such. [1] https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/196/196-20251022-adv-01-00-en.pdf https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/196... [2] "Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission ..."

ThomasPw 11mo ago

The reporting on this war has certainly made media bias evident. Some media just do not report certain stories at all theguardian is a but one example ....