Comment by smoothjazz
1 year ago
Glad to see Israel face some responsibility for its horrific acts against civilians.
> The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them
Sounds like a ceasefire to me. How else would they do this? Definitely not with any of the military tactics Israel is currently using.
> > The court ruled that Israel must do all it can to prevent genocide, including refraining from killing Palestinians or causing harm to them
> Sounds like a ceasefire to me. How else would they do this? Definitely not with any of the military tactics Israel is currently using.
Reading the actual icj ruling it seems like it only forbid it when done with genocidial intent. The court did not forbid collateral damage.
The specific wording included the line "...take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II..."
Earlier in paragraph 78 they said "The Court recalls that these acts fall within the scope of Article II of the Convention when they are committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a group as such (see paragraph 44 above)."
So basically it is only forbidden if the intent is specificly to kill Palestinians and not if it is collateral damage to some other military objective.
I don't think this order will affect anything israel is doing.
The ruling is so politically ambiguous, so israel will probably be digesting it for awhile. Perhaps lowering the military activities.
That seems optimistic. It's not like they haven't already been made aware of their own activities by this point.
I agree the ruling is politically ambiguous like pretty much all things political - but it does pretty clearly signal that the international community has soured on the IDF's actions. This feels like a great opportunity for the Isreali government to say "Oh, my bad" and start serious de-escalation issues while losing less face because they're complying with "genuine humanitarian concerns".
Diplomacy isn't about hard rules - the ICJ can't say "We impose a cease-fire" and demand that the GM of the world step in an immediately cease hostilities. Everything in diplomacy is about posturing and implications - it's why the US has managed to maintain the frankly insanely incoherent "Strategic Ambiguity" of trying to appease the PRC and Taiwan simultaneously, and it works - both countries are happy that the US winks after every statement about the PRC or Taiwan and gives local politicians room to favorably interpret the US statements to their base and reinforce that "Actually they're on our side".
I don't know, that part seemed really clear. I think the ambigious part would more be the order about aid (how much aid is sufficient?)
1 reply →
Except SA specifically asked the court to require a ceasefire, which would have immediate consequences via security council vote and no more munitions landing in Israel. And the judges voted it down
This isn't a read between the lines situation, because SA's request was specifically for the court to temporarily rule for a full immediate ceasefire until the larger case could be heard
What is interesting here is that by mis-reading the verdict like yourself, and Israel assuming the worst, both sides immediately came out saying today was a huge win. So at least we have that, everyone (but the Palestinians, who aren't a side in this case) is happy
From what i understand, the ceasefire was an extreme long shot by south africa and nobody really expected the icj to grant it. Particularly because the court cant order hamas to do anything and a one sided cease fire seems kind of unreasonable, but also the right to self defense is pretty fundamental in international law.
Is ICJ even able to order a ceasefire? ICJ did not recognize the activities of Israel as the right to self defense. ICJ would have recognized the activities of rebel force against the genocide as the right to self defense, but I don't think that is a question that came up.
5 replies →
> Except SA specifically asked the court to require a ceasefire, which would have immediate consequences via security council vote
The US would block anything against Israel anyway. The UN has no power when it comes to the security council members or their satellites.
Honestly I'm not trying to mis-read the verdict which is why I asked the question. I think all of Israel's strategies to date include the death of Palestinians. Since that's explicitly forbidden with that ruling, how will they continue to fight? Will they just ignore the ruling or change tactics?
You are allowed under international law to lead war with significant amounts of civilian casualties. The issue being judged is claims of Israel committing a genocide. This is just a preliminary order while the full case is considered, and it might be bad PR to disregard it, but nothing else will come of it.
When hearing 'genocide', most people immediately jump to the Holocaust, but the definition used by the ICC and IL in general is far more permissible:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
A to E are horrible acts by themselves, but what makes a genocide is intent, and intent is very hard to prove. Personally, I think SA brought a very strong case forward, the genocidal tendencies of key Israeli decision makers and exeters are well published. In the US and Europe, the political class and general public just ignore the evidence currently, and a ruling of the ICC might help people 'wake up', but not much tangible consequences will result from it otherwise.
1 reply →
The measures ordered by the UN court are in references to Article II of the Genocide Convention [0], which limits the scope to “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, where the court identifies the group as “Palestinians in Gaza”. So it’s the intent of genocide towards that group which is the deciding factor. As long as the actions do not carry that intent (and are plausible as such), they are not prohibited.
My reading is that the court is basically saying “You are presently running the risk of committing genocide, please take all measures in your power to prevent that.”
[0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-...
4 replies →
[flagged]
14 replies →
[flagged]
9 replies →
I believe the court reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself. Presumably, the "all it can to prevent" wording is meant to work around things we expect a nation must do, such as defending itself from attack.
It explicitly says they must stop killing Palestinians. None of their current military tactics satisfy this demand.
The court referenced article II of the Genocide Convention here, which includes "Killing members of the group." Any country that commits genocide in the way outlined by the convention would be in violation, not just Israel.
11 replies →
This goes beyond military tactics:
> Leading propaganda machine and former Member of Knesset Einat Wilf suggests that the Israeli government should allow aid into Gaza officially, but unofficially let "protesters" to block all aid from entering the Strip. I think that's actually kinda what happened today.
-- https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/175021647115263591...
> The Gaon Rabbi Dov Lior Shalita in a halachic ruling: Citizens must prevent the entry of Hamas trucks even on Shabbat, because equipping and supplying the enemy is a war act that must be stopped from the point of view of human control.
-- https://twitter.com/Torat_IDF/status/1750600997745959279
Probably a terrible translation but the point is clear, incitement and impunity, and the results are predictable.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/protesters-prev...
https://www.jewishpress.com/news/eye-on-palestine/gaza/prote...
Yesterday, 0 trucks could enter Gaza, the day before that 9 out of 60, don't know about today. Note that under the convention against genocide, Israel is required to prosecute genocidal speech, much less such genocidal acts (apart from not committing them of course). Instead, as Yoav Gallant just posted this on Twitter:
> The State of Israel does not need need to be lectured on morality in order to distinguish between terrorists and the civilian population in Gaza. The ICJ went above and beyond, when it granted South Africa's antisemitic request to discuss the claim of genocide in Gaza.
... which is as good a summary as any for what you find at every corner with this: not just the unwillingness to learn, but the inability to even comprehend any of this. When Gideon Levy talks about the incredible depth of Israeli indoctrination, he isn't kidding, and he's not exaggerating.
2 replies →
International law regulates war, but does not entirely prohibit it (that would be futile; wars of aggression are specifically prohibited by Briand-Kellogg pact, but nowadays even aggressors try to dress the situation as justified defense and often get away with it; few wars since 1945 were tried by a competent tribunal and judged unlawful).
It isn't unlawful per se to cause civilian casualties during military operations; any demand that the warring parties limit themselves to killing combatants only would be unrealistic, especially in urban settings.
It is unlawful to target civilians intentionally or to cause wanton damage to civilian infrastructure, though.
When the UN told the US not to go to war with Irak, they just ignored it.
Those bodies have zero power and countries that want to massacre will kill no matter what.
[flagged]
Quite the contrary - they have all the power, they are just choosing not to use it in this case. If the court ordered a ceasefire all weapon shipments to Israel would have to stop the same day.
What does "have to" mean in this context? If the US were to sell another batch of weapons would other countries try to shoot the plane out of the air? Would they try to unilaterally sanction 30% of the world economy?
The US absolutely would not stop shipping arms to Israel or anyone else because of an international body's ruling.
Israel has stockpiles of arms anyway. The war wouldn't stop just because the arms trade stopped.
Why? Whose the enforcer?
Other countries have ignored the ICJ before.
Not at all. It simply instructed Israel to try and hit fewer people. Which is what we all expect from every army.
Isn't this collateral damage of waging war with a terrorist organisation embedded in civilian population? I don't this this counts for genocide, as sad as the results are...
The technicality I see here is that the ICJ can call a ceasefire in an armed conflict, this would carry the implicit message that the civilian casualties are collateral damage. Instead they are asking to stop the genocidal acts. In a genocide the civilians are the target. It’s bad for the Palestinians in the short term, and bad for Israel in the long
>Instead they are asking to stop the genocidal acts.
No, they have ordered Israel not to commit genocidal acts. The court has made no ruling on whether Israel has or has not committed genocidal acts.
No, if they wanted a ceasefire they would have asked for a ceasefire.