Top UN court stops short of ordering cease-fire in Gaza and demands Israel contain deaths
Israel is set to hear whether the UN's top court will order it to end its military offensive in Gaza during a case filed by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide.
Who wants to place a bet if Israel is going to give a shit?
My vote is on “keep going and keep denying”.
ICJ orders Israel to take measures to prevent and punish direct incitement of genocide
ICJ ruling does not explicitly order a ceasefire
Israel’s security minister responds to ICJ ruling by tweeting 'Hague Shmague'
Israel will continue to defend itself while adhering to international law, says Netanyahu
Gentlemen don't bet on a sure thing.
I know Biden gets a lot of shit for it, but I suspect this is also one of the reasons why the Biden administration has delayed criticising Netenyahu and been very cautious in doing so.
They know Netenyahu would ignore them anyway, that it would damage their alliance with Israel, and have probably come to the conclusion that being too strong wouldn't help remove him from power.
Articles like this seem to back up my theory:
After cautious criticism by Biden, Netanyahu rallies Israel’s right wing
Not that I agree with the logic, but that might partly explain it.
No one is forcing Biden to export weapons to Israel, knowing full well they are being used to commit war crimes.
Yes, but the US iced out Pakistan and leaned into Jordan after Bin Laden was discovered in Abottabad and AQA millitants routinely received refuge in Pakistan. Alliances need to serve both sides and Netanyahu’s refusal to deescalate or take the off-ramp and let Israel move on from his policy failures, has put Biden and the US atop a geopolitical powder keg.
Most countries don't take advice from people that hate them and want to see them destroyed.
But of course you'll probably continue to think that if you scream even louder about how much you hate Israel maybe Israel will listen to you.
Meanwhile in the real world, Israel is not committing genocide. People wouldn't be calling for a ceasefire if there was actual genocide going on because a ceasefire would mean Hamas would no longer be able to protect Palestinian civilians from a genocidal army. Calls for a ceasefire is an admission that a) Hamas is not protecting the civilian population and b) civilian casualties are only occurring because of conflict between Israel an Hamas. Civilian casualties that occur because of a conflict is a part of a war. Genocide is when civilians are directly targeted, which can happen while in a state of ceasefire, which is what happened on October 7.
Nobody calls for the perpetrators of the genocide that occurred on October 7 to surrender and face justice, because we all know it's pointless. Actual perpetrators of genocide do not respect the law. When people call on Israel for ceasefire, call on Israel to make more effort to reduce civilian casualties it is an admission that Israel does respect the law.
The accusations of genocide is simply an attempt to motivate people into attacking Jews in Israel... and sometimes even Jews elsewhere in the world. It's all about increasing hostilities and wanting more people to die out of anger over the people currently dying in a conflict which was started by Hamas.
The calls for ceasefire is all about people wanting Yahya Sinwar to survive so he can fight another day and continue this conflict long term. Ideally Sinwar should face justice for the genocide he ordered. But it's doubtful that he will surrender himself, so the most likely scenario is that he will be killed, either directly by an IDF soldier or buried alive in an underground bunker constructed to keep him safe while leaving the Palestinian people at the mercy of an army that Hamas claims to be committing genocide. The myth of the fascist strongman leader in all of it's glory.
Now people will scream emotion at me thinking their emotion will somehow change the rules of logic. You may even report my post and have a moderator remove it because this "Israel is committing genocide" hateful meme can't survive the light of truth and basic logic. It only can survive in a place where hated dominates discussion.
Full text of the order. Juicy bits start at paragraph 75, page 24 thereabouts (goddammit pdf page numbering).
In particular, this:
The Court further considers that Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"Immediate and effective" is very clear language, and can be easily assessed. If Israel doesn't do that it opens the doors wide open to actually be found guilty of genocide, no wiggling "but we didn't mean to", no nothing. A legal tripwire if I've ever seen one.
Also make note of the one judge who voted against everything, including ordering that humanitarian aid be provided. No, it's not the Israeli one.
I also noticed that judge Sebutinde voted against everything. I wonder why? Why would anyone vote against an order to provide humanitarian aid?
Edit: removed a word
She voted against a resolution wherein even the Israeli judge voted yes.
In other words, continue military complain, just give some food.
Well they also say that Israel should make sure that the IDF, or subsets thereof, aren't committing genocide.
Ordering to stop a military campaign as such is out of the jurisdiction of the ICJ AFAIU: Israel does have the right to defend itself against Hamas under international law, arguably has the duty to do so, it's the above and beyond that's the issue, what the ICJ can actually rule on.
Stopping the IDF would be a thing for the security council, "ok you're making a mess of things, we'll take over, guaranteeing your security from Hamas while not committing genocide", but given the identity of some veto powers on the UNSC that's hypothetical at best.
Not ideal, but the reasoning behind it could be practical. If the ICJ demands a ceasefire, Israel will ignore it completely and keep doing what it's doing. Netanyahu has already said so multiple times. Ordering that measures be taken to limit civilian deaths and allow more aid could result in at least some compliance that would help alleviate the suffering in Gaza.
Live thread of the court ruling here:
"Please be nicer. Thanks."
That'll show 'em.
Why would they? It's not like they will face any consequences
ICJ is completely useless
Such provisional measures issued by the world court are legally binding,
That's impossible. Israel is a country, there's no legal authority above that. That's what "sovereign" means when we refer to a country as one.
It's entirely possible Israel has signed treaties whereby it agrees to follow World Court orders, but if it violated said treaties, that wouldn't be illegal (since Israel would give itself permission to do so, making it legal under Israeli law). Legality isn't really defined when countries interact with each other.
This is semantics. International law is a concept. You can say that disobeying the treaties you mentioned is illegal.
