As always you analyze and conclude in your perfect command of the English language. However, I beg to differ with your characterization of the order by the ICJ. The order clearly states that Israel "Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which
may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part". Thus clearly a military offensive which does not inflict on the Palestinian group (what ever this means, I don't know what it means) conditions that could bring about physical destruction... is specifically excluded from the order. Which I understand to mean that Israel can go on and eliminate Nazi Hamas animals as long as it is done as surgically and carefully as possible. The ICJ has as its chief justice the former ambassador of Lebanon to the UN who during his tenure there proved himself as a rabid Israel hater. The ICJ also denied Israel an extension of time in order to prepare a good response to the accusations, Israeli got one week only to defend herself from a brief by South Africa that was prepared over months. The mention of the kidnapped hostages, dead and alive, was mentioned in Section 56 (out of 57 sections of the judgement ) in five short lines. And this is the only mention of the massacre of Jews, the firing of about 5000 rockets or more, the gang-rapes, burning alive of families and kidnapping of 240 people (dead and alive) of October 7 that precipitated the war and the suffering on BOTH sides (all the towns, hamlets and Kibbutzim around the Gaza strip were evacuated, even these days Hamas fires rockets at them, and the most inhabitants, when they come back, have no homes to come back to): "27. The Court recalls that, in its Order of 26 January 2024, it noted that the military operation conducted by Israel following the attack of 7 October 2023 had resulted in “a large number of deaths and injuries, as well as the massive destruction of homes, the forcible displacement of the vast majority of the population, and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure". In other words, the Court does not give a hoot about Jewish victims. I could go on and comment on the uneducated, face covered rioters at the elite universities in the US, but you know all about these "peaceful" protestors.
You said: This underscores the complex dynamics at play, where verbal criticisms from American leaders coexist with concrete actions favoring Israel..
Message: Biden is walking a very thin line between maintaining American-Israel relationships, and his disapproval of Israeli actions. He HAS withheld a shipment of bombs to show a break in supporting Israel, so "his actions are not necessarily showing favoritism to Israel." In my opinion, the Israeli PM has shown savage and homicidal behavior toward other people and should be removed from his political office. Yes, he is reacting to the horrific attack on October 7th on an Israeli Kibbutz, but to kill another 5,000 Palestine people for the 1,200 Israel murdered is not going to solve the mid-east hostilities.
The rapidly declining influence of the United States is having a dangerous effect on the safety and security of free people around the world.
The isolation of Israel could easily be resolved if the United States still had a strong economy, strong military and leaders with moral clarity. Sadly Marxist tactics and leftist policies have weakened American prestige and have contributed to today's chaos.
Regardless of the nay sayers, the United States has been the premier force for good since our founding and especially since the end of the Second World War. Free people and free-enterprise are the surest way to secure the peace and prosperity required for an enduring society.
To defend these principles is not a crime against humanity. We must be clear in our support of Israel and those struggling against tyranny. President Reagan demonstrated the power of articulating these principles with clarity and strength.
As always you analyze and conclude in your perfect command of the English language. However, I beg to differ with your characterization of the order by the ICJ. The order clearly states that Israel "Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which
may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part". Thus clearly a military offensive which does not inflict on the Palestinian group (what ever this means, I don't know what it means) conditions that could bring about physical destruction... is specifically excluded from the order. Which I understand to mean that Israel can go on and eliminate Nazi Hamas animals as long as it is done as surgically and carefully as possible. The ICJ has as its chief justice the former ambassador of Lebanon to the UN who during his tenure there proved himself as a rabid Israel hater. The ICJ also denied Israel an extension of time in order to prepare a good response to the accusations, Israeli got one week only to defend herself from a brief by South Africa that was prepared over months. The mention of the kidnapped hostages, dead and alive, was mentioned in Section 56 (out of 57 sections of the judgement ) in five short lines. And this is the only mention of the massacre of Jews, the firing of about 5000 rockets or more, the gang-rapes, burning alive of families and kidnapping of 240 people (dead and alive) of October 7 that precipitated the war and the suffering on BOTH sides (all the towns, hamlets and Kibbutzim around the Gaza strip were evacuated, even these days Hamas fires rockets at them, and the most inhabitants, when they come back, have no homes to come back to): "27. The Court recalls that, in its Order of 26 January 2024, it noted that the military operation conducted by Israel following the attack of 7 October 2023 had resulted in “a large number of deaths and injuries, as well as the massive destruction of homes, the forcible displacement of the vast majority of the population, and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure". In other words, the Court does not give a hoot about Jewish victims. I could go on and comment on the uneducated, face covered rioters at the elite universities in the US, but you know all about these "peaceful" protestors.
You said: This underscores the complex dynamics at play, where verbal criticisms from American leaders coexist with concrete actions favoring Israel..
Message: Biden is walking a very thin line between maintaining American-Israel relationships, and his disapproval of Israeli actions. He HAS withheld a shipment of bombs to show a break in supporting Israel, so "his actions are not necessarily showing favoritism to Israel." In my opinion, the Israeli PM has shown savage and homicidal behavior toward other people and should be removed from his political office. Yes, he is reacting to the horrific attack on October 7th on an Israeli Kibbutz, but to kill another 5,000 Palestine people for the 1,200 Israel murdered is not going to solve the mid-east hostilities.
Elizabeth, www.democrazy2020.org
Elizabeth
Excellent!
The rapidly declining influence of the United States is having a dangerous effect on the safety and security of free people around the world.
The isolation of Israel could easily be resolved if the United States still had a strong economy, strong military and leaders with moral clarity. Sadly Marxist tactics and leftist policies have weakened American prestige and have contributed to today's chaos.
Regardless of the nay sayers, the United States has been the premier force for good since our founding and especially since the end of the Second World War. Free people and free-enterprise are the surest way to secure the peace and prosperity required for an enduring society.
To defend these principles is not a crime against humanity. We must be clear in our support of Israel and those struggling against tyranny. President Reagan demonstrated the power of articulating these principles with clarity and strength.
Few leaders today recognize that.