Jump to content

Provisional Decision Today: ICJ Weighs Emergency Measures Amid Allegations of Genocide in Gaza


Recommended Posts

UN court orders Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza

International court of justice stops short of granting South Africa’s request to order immediate ceasefire

 

"The ruling is not the final word from the court on whether Israel’s actions amounted to genocide, but it provides a strong indication that the judges believe there is a credible risk to Palestinians under the genocide convention. Granting South Africa’s application for special measures, the court did not have to find whether Israel had committed genocide, which will be determined at a later date, only that its acts were capable of falling within the genocide convention and urgent preventative action was necessary."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/26/un-court-orders-israel-to-ensure-acts-of-genocide-are-not-committed-in-gaza

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, sungod said:

 

One sided and blinkered as normal, ditto for Israelis who  saw young kids massacred at the hands of Hamas just enjoying themselves at a dance festival, old people cowering in fear as Hamas attacked and killed them in their houses.

 

I'd say may Israelis feel the same, just a hunch.....

 

What about the dead Palestinian kids, you never mentioned them.

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of flame and trolling comments have been removed from this thread and the General Topics thread that preceded it.

 

Please be mindful of the forum's rules:

 

9. You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages. You will respect other members and post in a civil manner. Personal attacks, insults or hate speech posted on the forum or sent by private message are not allowed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stats said:

UN court orders Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza

International court of justice stops short of granting South Africa’s request to order immediate ceasefire

 

"The ruling is not the final word from the court on whether Israel’s actions amounted to genocide, but it provides a strong indication that the judges believe there is a credible risk to Palestinians under the genocide convention. Granting South Africa’s application for special measures, the court did not have to find whether Israel had committed genocide, which will be determined at a later date, only that its acts were capable of falling within the genocide convention and urgent preventative action was necessary."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/26/un-court-orders-israel-to-ensure-acts-of-genocide-are-not-committed-in-gaza

 

 

Which is about as close to a guilty verdict that a court can make in a preliminary ruling. The court notably did not toss out the complaint. I don't like Natanyahu's chances of avoiding the ICC at some point.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Middle East latest: ICJ rules Israel will face genocide investigation - but fails to order ceasefire

Israeli and Palestinian officials react after the International Court of Justice hands down its ruling in South Africa's genocide case.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/middle-east-crisis-us-uk-launch-strikes-houthi-targets-israel-gaza-hamas-12978800

 

https://news.sky.com/story/middle-east-crisis-us-uk-launch-strikes-houthi-targets-israel-gaza-hamas-12978800?postid=7129803#liveblog-body

 

"Just as a reminder, the court has said Israel must: 

  • Take all measures in its power to prevent the commission of any acts of genocide;
  • Prevent and punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
  • Immediately enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza;
  • Prevent the destruction, and ensure the preservation, of evidence related to South Africa's allegations."

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But experts believe that aside from the significant symbolic impact of the ruling, there could be tangible consequences on the ground.

 

"It makes it much harder for other states to continue to support Israel in the face of a neutral third party finding there is a risk of genocide," said Juliette McIntyre, international law expert from the University of South Australia.

 

"States may withdraw military or other support for Israel in order to avoid this," she added.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/israel-must-prevent-genocidal-acts-in-gaza-u-n-court/

 

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is obviously: Will this ruling change anything?

Will Israel, or should I say Israel's government, now respect the lives of ordinary Palestinians? 

Will the USA deliver fewer weapons to Israel? Will the USA agree with other nations to rule against Israel in the UN?

I don't have much hope that anything will change. The powerful do what they want to do. That's it. 

 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brickleberry said:

 

It most definitely is a win for South Africa. This was an interim hearing, and to decide if the case will move forward.

 

The court overwhelmingly voted 15/2 that there is potentially a case of genocide to answer, and so the case continues. How is that not a win? The court were never going to order Israel to stop fighting, but they have put restrictions on what they can do. This will make Israel's propaganda easier to combat, because the world court has acknowledged they are not doing this the right way - too many have died. 

 

Personally, even though I loath Bibi and his right wing buddies, I do not believe Israel is attempting genocide. Ethnic cleansing of the area, probably. 

 

War crimes? 1000% yes. There have been so many examples, even yesterday we watched an old Palestinian guy waving a white flag get shot on iTV.

 

Genocide? No. Even though they are indiscriminately killing thousands - including their own naked, white flag bearing hostages, they are not trying to kill them all.

 

Key words: Interim. Potential. Case continues. You're jumping the gun - and that final ruling can be years away.

 

As for what the court 'were never going to order Israel to stop fighting' - that's what you're saying now. Since the initial phase, and well before, you wannabe 'pro-palestinian' guys were all over the place with fantasies about what may happen, with many assertions that's exactly what will happen.

 

The bottom line is that the war goes on, the restrictions aren't quite what you people imagine they are. I'm pretty sure y'all will start to scream and shout after the next bombings or something, but that's because you're busy with labels, propaganda and false narratives.

 

What you 'believe' is immaterial, and is not supported by facts - even if it was possible.

 

War crimes are not decided on internet forums, tv reports and so on. I'm aware some of you have trouble getting your head around this.

 

The court provision is up for a month, after which things will be reviewed. In other news, reports suggest Israel and Hamas are getting closer to another deal of hostages for prisoners plus a pause in the fighting. This mashes quite well with the ICJ ruling - and I don't think it's a coincidence.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

Which is about as close to a guilty verdict that a court can make in a preliminary ruling. The court notably did not toss out the complaint. I don't like Natanyahu's chances of avoiding the ICC at some point.

 

@ozimoron

 

Your posting history does not indicate much by way of being a legal (let alone on international law) expert.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

But experts believe that aside from the significant symbolic impact of the ruling, there could be tangible consequences on the ground.

 

"It makes it much harder for other states to continue to support Israel in the face of a neutral third party finding there is a risk of genocide," said Juliette McIntyre, international law expert from the University of South Australia.

 

"States may withdraw military or other support for Israel in order to avoid this," she added.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/israel-must-prevent-genocidal-acts-in-gaza-u-n-court/

 

 

@ozimoron

 

Comments by several Western countries suggest they do not see the case, or the court accepting it as worthy. Labeling the ICJ as a 'neutral third party' is a choice. Given there are enough judges on the panel who are unlikely to vote against the wishes of their home countries.

 

Which countries do you suppose will stop providing military support (don't know what's meant by 'other') to Israel? As in countries which have not already done so before the ICJ ruling.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The question is obviously: Will this ruling change anything?

Will Israel, or should I say Israel's government, now respect the lives of ordinary Palestinians? 

Will the USA deliver fewer weapons to Israel? Will the USA agree with other nations to rule against Israel in the UN?

I don't have much hope that anything will change. The powerful do what they want to do. That's it. 

 

 

Israel is under no obligation to stop the war. The restrictions cited are pretty much standard. If they were to be reviews (such as by a possible future ICC investigation) I have little doubt most would pass the rather low bar required. International law on war crimes (as in the nitty gritty legal details) is not quite what people imagine. In this regard, you are correct that the powerful do what they want to do - it was basically 'the powerful' nations which formulated these laws, and they are suited accordingly.

 

Israel will go on, but just be more careful about dotting i's, crossing t's. I don't expect this to have a huge impact on things. Similarly, not expecting Hamas to release the hostages, regardless of vows to uphold decisions. Some excuse will present itself, or be dreamed up.

 

Why would the USA deliver fewer weapons to Israel? This isn't about quantity, but application. And why would the USA join votes against Israel in the UN? You seem to imagine this temporary ruling is some moral addict or something. It is not. Several Western countries, including the USA, already opined negatively even on the court accepting the case.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The question is obviously: Will this ruling change anything?

Will Israel, or should I say Israel's government, now respect the lives of ordinary Palestinians? 

Will the USA deliver fewer weapons to Israel? Will the USA agree with other nations to rule against Israel in the UN?

I don't have much hope that anything will change. The powerful do what they want to do. That's it. 

 

 

Not a rationale for giving up or doing nothing.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's unfortunate. The very UN that the judges were quoting from, that helped influence their decisions on provisional measures has just had its funding suspended by the White House for suspicion of terror activities on the 7th Oct. New topic here:

 

Allegations of UN Agency Staff Involvement in Hamas Attacks Prompt U.S. Funding Pause

https://aseannow.com/topic/1318180-allegations-of-un-agency-staff-involvement-in-hamas-attacks-prompt-us-funding-pause/

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Court has also stated that it “is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release” (see Order, para. 85)."

 

Opinion by JUDGE (AD HOC) BARAK ICJ

 

1. South Africa came to the Court seeking the immediate suspension of the military operations in the Gaza Strip. It has wrongly sought to impute the crime of Cain to Abel. The Court rejected South Africa’s main contention and, instead, adopted measures that recall Israel’s existing obligations under the Genocide Convention. The Court has reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend its citizens and emphasized the importance of providing humanitarian aid to the population of Gaza. The provisional measures indicated by the Court are thus of a significantly narrower scope than those requested by South Africa.


2. Notably, the Court has emphasized that “all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law”, which certainly includes Hamas. The Court has also stated that it “is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release” (see Order, para. 85).

 

https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf

10 pages^^^

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

   Israel have asked the Palestinians  to move out the combat areas and have given them safe passage to move and they drop leaflets and send texts asking civilians to move . Hamas have been forcing them to stay behind and act as Human shields .

   Israel will stop, once they get all the hostages back .

Hamas could have stopped every single Palestinian  death , but their actions have caused the deaths 

I read in multiple media that Israel said they won't stop, even if all hostages are released.

And about the leaflets and moving: How many people should move how often and where to? Is there still any place Palestinians can go without the risk of being killed? And then there is all the destruction and hunger and little drinking water and all that.

 

If Israel doesn't kill every single Palestinians then they can be sure that they made enough enemies for the future to come. So what do they do? Kill everybody and make sure there are no homes and infrastructure anymore for Palestinians to return. And obviously with American weapons and more or less American support. The Americans could convince them to stop. They don't. Sad. 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, retarius said:

Obviously guilty from my perspective, you can't murder 25000 innocent people like this, even in a search for revenge. I suspect however that the ICJ will find some technical reason why they don't have jurisdiction in the case, to avoid losing credibility with most of the world.

But the whole Israeli operation seems to be designed to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians and to make the now cleared land available to Israelis. 

They wimped out of calling for a ceasefire, but did the next best thing.

Of course the israelis will ignore it, and the US and Britain will do the usual, but it will encourage countries on the fence to perhaps come down on the side of justice.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I read in multiple media that Israel said they won't stop, even if all hostages are released.

And about the leaflets and moving: How many people should move how often and where to? Is there still any place Palestinians can go without the risk of being killed? And then there is all the destruction and hunger and little drinking water and all that.

 

If Israel doesn't kill every single Palestinians then they can be sure that they made enough enemies for the future to come. So what do they do? Kill everybody and make sure there are no homes and infrastructure anymore for Palestinians to return. And obviously with American weapons and more or less American support. The Americans could convince them to stop. They don't. Sad. 

 

Very sad.

Even if they killed every Palestinian in Gaza, there are more in the west bank and apparently millions outside israel. If ever a nation wanted to be living under attack ( even if only attacks on individuals ) for ever, it is israel, creating new enemies every day.

 

Perhaps not now, perhaps not for years, but IMO israelis will come to rue the day they decided to massacre an entire population that was under their control, and was virtually defenseless against the might of the israeli army.

 

IMO America will also come to regret the day their leaders chose to supply israel with the means to to do so, and Britain will also get some of that.

 

Seems like the Europeans might be having second thoughts about supporting israel, judging by comments heard on Al Jazeera ( not supposed to link to Al Jazeera, so won't give one ).

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And now Israel is obviously already accusing the ICJ of antisemitic bias. Like: Jews can never be wrong - by definition.

Sad. But obviously just like expected. 

The problem for israel with that is that like with the boy that called wolf, many just ignore it now, as it's been so overused to try and protect zionists from attack by anyone.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The question is obviously: Will this ruling change anything?

Will Israel, or should I say Israel's government, now respect the lives of ordinary Palestinians? 

Will the USA deliver fewer weapons to Israel? Will the USA agree with other nations to rule against Israel in the UN?

I don't have much hope that anything will change. The powerful do what they want to do. That's it. 

 

Probably nothing on the ground will change- America will still keep sending bombs to israel to drop on women and children, and the israelis will keep on dropping them, but it MIGHT encourage some countries to stop supporting israel.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, stats said:

UN court orders Israel to ensure acts of genocide are not committed in Gaza

International court of justice stops short of granting South Africa’s request to order immediate ceasefire

 

"The ruling is not the final word from the court on whether Israel’s actions amounted to genocide, but it provides a strong indication that the judges believe there is a credible risk to Palestinians under the genocide convention. Granting South Africa’s application for special measures, the court did not have to find whether Israel had committed genocide, which will be determined at a later date, only that its acts were capable of falling within the genocide convention and urgent preventative action was necessary."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/26/un-court-orders-israel-to-ensure-acts-of-genocide-are-not-committed-in-gaza

 

At the least, Netanyahu and Biden will not be able to prance about proclaiming that the highest court on the planet says it's OK to bomb thousands of women and children to bits while starving them to death.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That is, IMHO, the problem.

Those nations, especially the USA and Israel, have the attitude that by definition they do everything right.

If they would be fair, then they would say/behave like: We know we didn't do what we are accused of doing. Go ahead with this case and we will show we are innocent. 

They are not innocent, and they know they are not innocent, that is why they don't even want to have anything in the public and in a court which could possibly shows their guilt.

And now Israel is obviously already accusing the ICJ of antisemitic bias. Like: Jews can never be wrong - by definition.

Sad. But obviously just like expected. 

 

The USA does not say everything Israel does is right. Even Israel owns up (now and then) when things are obviously wrong. That's just a general untrue statement you offer in order to lay the ground for your 'argument'. As for the prescribed optimal reaction - this would require seeing the ICJ as neutral, unbiased and so on. Holding this position is a choice. You think judges from Russia, China or Muslim countries are going to rule against the wishes of their governments, people? Given the history of anti-Israel decision by such international bodies (same problems of representation on most), raising such doubts is reasonable. Israel gets more condemnations on the UN bodies than any other country. One would have thought that there are other issues in the world, some maybe of greater magnitude, but no. Check how many of the countries involved in such bodies are democratic, allow the sort of freedoms they raise issue vs. Israel with and so on. Half amusing, half infuriating.

 

If what you commented was right, Israel would have just ignored the proceedings. It's not a must to partake, to present it's case and so on. The reality is runs counter to what you claim.

 

I don't know that Israel blamed the court with 'antisemitic' bias, or if that's your own version. There was criticism for sure, and that's to be expected. Why wouldn't there be criticism? It's normal. This 'Jews can't be wrong' tired bit, is something you tend to offer, much less support.

 

On the flip side, don't recall you having that many issues with countries and groups who's attitude is the Hamas 7/10 attack and subsequent actions are justified.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...