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.
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.
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 what they ruled on so of course they didn’t. They also didn’t call it not a genocide.
What they ruled is that South Africa’s case has enough merit to warrant a preliminary order, meaning that it is possibly, but not necessarily, a genocide, “It is not obvious that there’s no genocide going on”. The actual verdict will take years to reach as it requires establishing intent and everything, not just “civilians are dying and Israel could and should do more to prevent that”.
Well, they had much more information than an average internet user has and that’s quite different conclusion from what majority users on this board would immediately jump without any doubt that Israel is committing genocide.
More over, it did not say that “Israel could”, i.e. it did not say that it did anything incorrectly. only that “it should take all measures within its power”.
Full text of the order. Juicy bits start at paragraph 75, page 24 thereabouts (goddammit pdf page numbering).
In particular, this:
“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.
Notably, they did NOT call whatever Israel has done as genocide.
Not what they ruled on so of course they didn’t. They also didn’t call it not a genocide.
What they ruled is that South Africa’s case has enough merit to warrant a preliminary order, meaning that it is possibly, but not necessarily, a genocide, “It is not obvious that there’s no genocide going on”. The actual verdict will take years to reach as it requires establishing intent and everything, not just “civilians are dying and Israel could and should do more to prevent that”.
Well, they had much more information than an average internet user has and that’s quite different conclusion from what majority users on this board would immediately jump without any doubt that Israel is committing genocide.
More over, it did not say that “Israel could”, i.e. it did not say that it did anything incorrectly. only that “it should take all measures within its power”.