The ICJ Ordered Israel to Halt its Rafah Military Offensive

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, bannork said:

Israelis intent on starving Palestinians to death 

"Gaza war: Israelis attack aid convoys sent for Palestinians - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9950n003yo

Given that the majority of relief supplies are stolen by Hamas, perhaps you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

[placeholder]

54 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Given that the majority of relief supplies are stolen by Hamas, perhaps you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

Got any valid evidence to support that claim?

[transam]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Got any valid evidence to support that claim?

Are you a Hamas protector/supporter.....?  🤔

After all, you are the link king here, I am surprised you don't have that info from your daily searches..🤗

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, transam said:

Are you a Hamas protector/supporter.....?  🤔

After all, you are the link king here, I am surprised you don't have that info from your daily searches..🤗

Think a little bit further on that. Why do you think it was that the l"ink King" asked for a valid link to evidence? Do you think that's because it exists? You need any more hints?

[transam]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Think a little bit further on that. Why do you think it was that the l"ink King" asked for a valid link to evidence? Do you think that's because it exists? You need any more hints?

No, but you can answer my question........😉

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, transam said:

No, but you can answer my question........😉

Just a transparent attempt by you to make this personal.

Edited May 25 by placeholder

[transam]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Just a transparent attempt by you to make this personal.

Oh well, don't answer the question then..........

[placeholder]

Just now, transam said:

Oh well, don't answer the question then..........

More of the same nonsense

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Got any valid evidence to support that claim?

https://allisrael.com/hamas-steals-70-of-aid-trucks-cripples-deliveries-via-new-u-s-built-gaza-pier

[placeholder]

41 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

https://allisrael.com/hamas-steals-70-of-aid-trucks-cripples-deliveries-via-new-u-s-built-gaza-pier

Wow! From the unbiased source of all Israel.com. Let's examine their claim a little more closely:

 

After the pier became operational on Friday, a UN official told Reuters on Monday that nearly 70% of the humanitarian aid that arrived at the pier had not reached a World Food Programme warehouse in Deir al-Balah.

Eleven out of 16 aid trucks “were cleaned out by Palestinians” on the journey to the warehouse on Saturday. “They’ve not seen trucks for a while,” the official said.

“They [armed terrorists] just basically mounted on the trucks and helped themselves to some of the food parcels.”

https://allisrael.com/hamas-steals-70-of-aid-trucks-cripples-deliveries-via-new-u-s-built-gaza-pier

 

Do you understand what  brackets [ ] signify? That what it contains is not part of the quote. That "armed terrorists" is an interpolation put in there by the author of the article. If you go to other sources, you'll find that what they said was that it was  hungry Palestinians clearing out the trucks. Not "armed terrorists".

This passage is representative of what all the other reports that I could find were saying:

"Ten truckloads of food, driven from the pier by U.N. contractors, were received at a WFP warehouse in Deir El Balah. The next day, just five trucks made it to the warehouse after 11 others were intercepted by desperate Gazans, and the operation was temporarily halted.

"Crowds had stopped the trucks at various points along the way. "

https://www.newsweek.com/gaza-floating-pier-un-humanitarian-aid-israel-hamas-1904248

 

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

https://allisrael.com/hamas-steals-70-of-aid-trucks-cripples-deliveries-via-new-u-s-built-gaza-pier

As for the other claim by Israel that Hamas is stealing over half the aid:

US envoy: Israel hasn’t provided ‘specific evidence’ Hamas is stealing aid shipments

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-envoy-israel-hasnt-provided-specific-evidence-hamas-is-stealing-aid-shipments/#:~:text=The top US diplomat involved,diversion or theft of assistance.”

[Bkk Brian]

Interesting how the court orders Israel to open the Rafah crossing for aid supplies but it was Egypt that closed it. 

 

A senior U.S. official issued a rare rebuke of Egypt on May 22 for blocking aid transfers into Gaza. Egypt shares one border crossing with Gaza in Rafah, which has been closed since May 7. The unnamed U.S. official told The Times of Israel that aid could flow instead through Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing. “We do not believe that aid should be held back for any reason whatsoever. Kerem Shalom is open. The Israelis have it open. And that aid should be going through Kerem Shalom.” More than 82,000 metric tons of aid is currently stranded on the Egyptian side of the crossing, Edem Wosornu, a senior United Nations aid official, said in remarks reported by The Jerusalem Post.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/05/23/egyptian-blockade-of-aid-to-gaza-earns-rebuke-from-u-s/

 

Finally after a phone call from Biden they agreed to open it.

 

In call with Biden, Egypt’s Sissi agrees to release Gaza aid via Israel amid continued Rafah closure

Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi agreed with US President Joe Biden by phone on Friday to temporarily send humanitarian aid and fuel to the United Nations via Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing until legal mechanisms are in place to reopen the Rafah Border Crossing from the Palestinian side, the Egyptian presidency announces.

The announcement is a win for the Biden administration, which has been pressuring Egypt in recent days to take this step.

Aid has been piling up in Egypt since Israel launched an operation to take over the Gaza side of the Rafah Border Crossing with Egypt on May 7.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/in-call-with-biden-sissi-agrees-to-release-aid-into-gaza-via-israeli-crossing/

[Bkk Brian]

Joint Statement by the Head of the National Security Council and the Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

The charges of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice in the Hague are false, outrageous and morally repugnant.

Following the horrific attack against the citizens of Israel on October 7th, 2023, Israel embarked upon a defensive and just war to eliminate Hamas and to secure the release of our hostages.  Israel is acting based on its right to defend its territory and its citizens, consistent with its moral values and in compliance with international law, including international humanitarian law. 

Israel has not and will not conduct military actions in the Rafah area which may inflict on the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. 

Israel will continue its efforts to enable humanitarian assistance and will act, in full compliance with the law, to reduce as much as possible harm caused to the civilian population in Gaza. 

Israel will continue to enable the Rafah crossing to remain open for the entry of humanitarian assistance from the Egyptian side of the border, and will prevent terror groups from controlling the passage.

 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Where did I claim the ICJ had not?

 

On your other point, its not the Times of Israel but it is a legal opinion from 4 of the judges in the ICJ who made the rulings. Did you also read the CNN link? Have you got a problem with the Times of Israel?

 

Here's another expert, yes he's Jewish lawyer this time but the same opinion as the other 4 Judges.

 

Important!

#ICJ ruling said Israel must halt its military offensive in Rafah "which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that may bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part." 

The 2nd part is critical, especially the words "which may."

It didn't say Israel must halt entirely and unconditionally.

Israel will be within its rights to contend the operation in Rafah does not inflict that which the Court said should not, and therefore continue, perhaps with some modifications.

 

https://x.com/Ostrov_A/status/1793999954203042061

 

That's a misleading quote. It leaves out a crucial part of what the court said. Here's a fuller version:

The order says Israel “shall 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.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/24/world/israel-gaza-war-hamas-rafah

 

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

That's a misleading quote. It leaves out a crucial part of what the court said. Here's a fuller version:

The order says Israel “shall 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.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/24/world/israel-gaza-war-hamas-rafah

 

 

Its in a tweet what do you expect?

 

Four ICJ judges argue court order does not require IDF to stop all Rafah operations

Four of the 15 justices at the International Court of Justice argued that the key operative clause in the court’s ruling, handed down on Friday, does not require that Israel immediately halt all military operations in Rafah, but, rather, that it specifically halt military operations that “could bring about physical destruction in whole or in part” of the Palestinians. Among the four was Israel’s Aharon Barak.

A fifth judge, South Africa’s Dire Tladi, took the opposite view, arguing that the ruling, in “explicit terms, ordered the State of Israel to halt its offensive in Rafah.”

These were the only five of the 15 judges who penned an opinion or declaration to accompany the ruling.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/four-icj-judges-argue-court-order-does-not-require-idf-to-halt-all-rafah-operations/

[placeholder]

39 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

Its in a tweet what do you expect?

 

Four ICJ judges argue court order does not require IDF to stop all Rafah operations

Four of the 15 justices at the International Court of Justice argued that the key operative clause in the court’s ruling, handed down on Friday, does not require that Israel immediately halt all military operations in Rafah, but, rather, that it specifically halt military operations that “could bring about physical destruction in whole or in part” of the Palestinians. Among the four was Israel’s Aharon Barak.

A fifth judge, South Africa’s Dire Tladi, took the opposite view, arguing that the ruling, in “explicit terms, ordered the State of Israel to halt its offensive in Rafah.”

These were the only five of the 15 judges who penned an opinion or declaration to accompany the ruling.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/four-icj-judges-argue-court-order-does-not-require-idf-to-halt-all-rafah-operations/

I posted the entire quote to Twitter without a problem. So I would expect others to do the same.

 

As for the judges opinions. The vote was 13-2. Both of the dissenters wrote opinions. Of the other who voted with the majority, 2 supported this interpretation and one contradicted it. That leaves 10 judges. None of whom has dissented from this pronouncement from the President of the Court:

“Israel must immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in Rafah which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” Judge Nawaf Salam, president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), said on Friday.

The court considers the humanitarian situation in Rafah to be classified as “disastrous,” he said, adding that UN officials have indicated that the situation was set to “intensify even further” if the Israeli operation in Rafah continues."

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/24/middleeast/israel-icj-gaza-rafah-south-africa-ruling-intl/index.html

 

[Bkk Brian]

39 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I posted the entire quote to Twitter without a problem. So I would expect others to do the same.

 

As for the judges opinions. The vote was 13-2. Both of the dissenters wrote opinions. Of the other who voted with the majority, 2 supported this interpretation and one contradicted it. That leaves 10 judges. None of whom has dissented from this pronouncement from the President of the Court:

“Israel must immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in Rafah which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” Judge Nawaf Salam, president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), said on Friday.

The court considers the humanitarian situation in Rafah to be classified as “disastrous,” he said, adding that UN officials have indicated that the situation was set to “intensify even further” if the Israeli operation in Rafah continues."

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/24/middleeast/israel-icj-gaza-rafah-south-africa-ruling-intl/index.html

 

I posted the entire quote to Twitter without a problem. So I would expect others to do the same.

 

Yea, tweet him and tell him, he's a lawyer so I'm sure he will take up the case with you and in future carry out your expectations....

 

I know what they wrote, its all in the link I provided, did you not read it? 

 

ICJ Vice President Julia Sebutinde

“This measure does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only operates to partially restrict Israel’s offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention,” she wrote Friday.

She cautioned: “… this directive may be misunderstood as mandating a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah and amounts to micromanaging the hostilities in Gaza by restricting Israel’s ability to pursue its legitimate military objectives, while leaving its enemies, including Hamas, free to attack without Israel being able to respond.”

According to this interpretation, an Israeli military operation which would not lead to the mass destruction of Palestinian civilian life would be acceptable to the court.

 

Former Supreme Court president Barak

Former Supreme Court president Barak, who serves as an ad-hoc judge on the ICJ bench in the case brought against Israel by South Africa, wrote in his dissenting opinion that the majority decision “requires Israel to halt its military offensive in the Rafah Governorate only in so far as is necessary to comply with Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.” Therefore, according to Barak, “Israel is not prevented from carrying out its military operation in the Rafah Governorate as long as it fulfills its obligations under the Genocide Convention.”

 

The German judge, Georg Nolte, and the Romanian judge, Bogdan Aurescu – who are both among the 13 judges who voted in favor of this measure — also supported Barak’s interpretation of the decree. It is expected that this interpretation — that Israel is not required to halt any and all operations in Rafah – will become the official position of the Justice Ministry and attorney general.

 

Do you think the reason they wrote them  is so the media and others concerned would not misrepresent the ruling as they did in the previous one? Did you read my full post on this here?

 

 

 

Edited May 25 by Bkk Brian

[bannork]

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Given that the majority of relief supplies are stolen by Hamas, perhaps you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction.

Hamas' action is indefensible and so is Israel's which puts them on the same level as Hamas, namely inhumane.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Summerinsiam said:

What is the point of international courts and the rule of law if countries are allowed to ignore them? I find it disturbing that some posters think this is acceptable. Biden and Sunak are a disgrace. Thankfully the latter will be out of office shortly and back in California counting his millions. They both seem to be of the opinion that rulings only apply to the likes of Putin and various rogue African leaders with no friends, and not an ally. Obviously, the law applies across the board or it clearly has no purpose. When they see such blatant double standards and gross hypocrisy on consistent display, is there any wonder that most of the world, particularly in the global south is ambivalent towards the situation in Ukraine, and sensibly reserves judgement. Isn't that allegedly about upholding an international rules based order? Yet, they will bend over backwards to ensure that those precious rules don't apply to Israel. What happened to the invasion of Rafah being a red line? The world is watching.

Good post.

IMO the rest of the world is going to opt out of the IMO US controlled UN and set up an alternative organisation without a few countries having veto power.

 

One of these days the US is going to wake up in a world that doesn't kowtow to it any more ( I was going to include the UK, but does any country kowtow to it anymore- I doubt it ).

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

I posted the entire quote to Twitter without a problem. So I would expect others to do the same.

 

Yea, tweet him and tell him, he's a lawyer so I'm sure he will take up the case with you and in future carry out your expectations....

 

I know what they wrote, its all in the link I provided, did you not read it? 

 

ICJ Vice President Julia Sebutinde

“This measure does not entirely prohibit the Israeli military from operating in Rafah. Instead, it only operates to partially restrict Israel’s offensive in Rafah to the extent it implicates rights under the Genocide Convention,” she wrote Friday.

She cautioned: “… this directive may be misunderstood as mandating a unilateral ceasefire in Rafah and amounts to micromanaging the hostilities in Gaza by restricting Israel’s ability to pursue its legitimate military objectives, while leaving its enemies, including Hamas, free to attack without Israel being able to respond.”

According to this interpretation, an Israeli military operation which would not lead to the mass destruction of Palestinian civilian life would be acceptable to the court.

 

Former Supreme Court president Barak

Former Supreme Court president Barak, who serves as an ad-hoc judge on the ICJ bench in the case brought against Israel by South Africa, wrote in his dissenting opinion that the majority decision “requires Israel to halt its military offensive in the Rafah Governorate only in so far as is necessary to comply with Israel’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.” Therefore, according to Barak, “Israel is not prevented from carrying out its military operation in the Rafah Governorate as long as it fulfills its obligations under the Genocide Convention.”

 

The German judge, Georg Nolte, and the Romanian judge, Bogdan Aurescu – who are both among the 13 judges who voted in favor of this measure — also supported Barak’s interpretation of the decree. It is expected that this interpretation — that Israel is not required to halt any and all operations in Rafah – will become the official position of the Justice Ministry and attorney general.

 

Do you think the reason they wrote them  is so the media and others concerned would not misrepresent the ruling as they did in the previous one? Did you read my full post on this here?

 

 

 

Oh, he's a lawyer. I guess that means he's impartial and fair-minded? It's a good thing that lawyers don't try to make their case by slanting evidence. At least, that's the case in oppositeworld.

 

What don't you understand that out of 15 justices, 4 had a problem of some sort with the ruling? And 2 of those disagreed with the ruling in its entirety.

Edited May 25 by placeholder

[Bkk Brian]

42 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Oh, he's a lawyer. I guess that means he's impartial and fair-minded? It's a good thing that lawyers don't try to make their case by slanting evidence. At least, that's the case in oppositeworld.

 

What don't you understand that out of 15 justices, 4 had a problem of some sort with the ruling? And 2 of those disagreed with the ruling in its entirety.

What opposite world? and here we go what makes you think I don't understand?

 

He's come to the same opinion as 4 of the ICJ judges which was that limited operations can still go on. 

 

Misinterpretation of the courts order has happened before on 26th Jan ie plausible genocide which turned out to be not the case

 

Why did you not answer my questions?

 

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Do you think the reason they wrote them  is so the media and others concerned would not misrepresent the ruling as they did in the previous one? Did you read my full post on this here?

 

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

What opposite world? and here we go what makes you think I don't understand?

 

He's come to the same opinion as 4 of the ICJ judges which was that limited operations can still go on. 

 

Misinterpretation of the courts order has happened before on 26th Jan ie plausible genocide which turned out to be not the case

 

Why did you not answer my questions?

 

 

 

As I've pointed out, it's common for judges who dissent in whole in whole or in part from a decision to explain their differences with the  majority. 4 judges out of 15 disagreed wholly or in part with the decision. They are speaking for themselves. Not for the other 11 judges.

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As I've pointed out, it's common for judges who dissent in whole in whole or in part from a decision to explain their differences with the  majority. 4 judges out of 15 disagreed wholly or in part with the decision. They are speaking for themselves. Not for the other 11 judges.

Can you point out how many Declarations and Dissenting opinions were at the last hearings in this case. Here we have 5 in total.

 

Out of the four, 2 were dissenting opinions and 3 were declarations. The fifth one being the South African Judge but its pretty obvious what that said.

 

Declaration of Judge Tladi

Declaration of Judge Aurescu

Declaration of Judge Nolte

Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Barak

Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Sebutinde

 

You again avoided my questions.

 

Israeli officials: ICJ ruling gives leeway to continue Rafah offensive

The significant yet unclearly worded verdict was interpreted by four judges as a limited order instructing Israel to abide by the Genocide Convention during its activities in Rafah, but not requiring a complete halt to military operations there. The South African judge on the bench, by contrast, argued that the ruling explicitly requires Israel to halt all offensive military operations in Rafah. The 10 other judges avoided this key issue in their decisions.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-officials-icj-ruling-gives-leeway-to-continue-rafah-offensive/

 

 

 

Edited May 26 by Bkk Brian

[herfiehandbag]

On 5/24/2024 at 8:55 PM, Social Media said:

 

“Israel must immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in Rafah which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," said Judge Nawaf Salam, president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Judge Nawaf Salam just happens to be Lebanese.

 

He had a career at the UN, starting as a diplomatic representative for Lebanon, continuing as a senior beaurocrat before moving to the IC

J. He has some limited experience in practicing in the Law, but as never actually served as a judge, at any level, in any jurisdiction.

 

Wikipedia tells us that:" In the past, Nawaf has attracted attention on several occasions for statements critical of Israel. In 2015, he tweeted "#Israel Occupation of #Gaza & the #WestBank: UNHAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU - 48 YEARS OF OCCUPATION".^[14] Months later, the Jewish News Syndicate reported that he wrote: "Israel must stop the violence and end the occupation" and "portraying critics of Israeli policy as antisemites is an attempt to intimidate and discredit them, which we reject". Nawaf will preside over the case brought by South Africa against Israel."

 

Is It perhaps possible that, given the level of Iranian control over Lebanon, ( his various appointments will have been made with the consent of the Lebanese Government, which does not move without, in turn, the consent of Hezbollah) and his previous career, he could be regarded as a less than neutral jurist?

Edited May 26 by herfiehandbag

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

Judge Nawaf Salam just happens to be Lebanese.

 

He had a career at the UN, starting as a diplomatic representative for Lebanon, continuing as a senior beaurocrat before moving to the IC

J. He has some limited experience in practicing in the Law, but as never actually served as a judge, at any level, in any jurisdiction.

 

Wikipedia tells us that:" In the past, Nawaf has attracted attention on several occasions for statements critical of Israel. In 2015, he tweeted "#Israel Occupation of #Gaza & the #WestBank: UNHAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU - 48 YEARS OF OCCUPATION".^[14] Months later, the Jewish News Syndicate reported that he wrote: "Israel must stop the violence and end the occupation" and "portraying critics of Israeli policy as antisemites is an attempt to intimidate and discredit them, which we reject". Nawaf will preside over the case brought by South Africa against Israel."

 

Is It perhaps possible that, given the level of Iranian control over Lebanon, ( his various appointments will have been made with the consent of the Lebanese Government, which does not move without, in turn, the consent of Hezbollah) and his previous career, he could be regarded as a less than neutral jurist?

Further to my post, others here have, correctly pointed out, that the decision of the court was not unanimous. There were dissenters, who upheld the right of Israel to pursue Hamas into Rafah.

 

As ever, the "devil is in the detail". That however doesn't matter - Hamas and it's supporters will claim (falsely) that the court has judged Israel to be committing genocide. Hamas will make damn sure that civilians die in any Israeli attack, to support that. Much of the media will trumpet those claims uncritically.

[steve187]

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

Got any valid evidence to support that claim?

loads on google - hamas stealing aid

[placeholder]

46 minutes ago, steve187 said:

loads on google - hamas stealing aid

And yet you offer nothing yourself to support this statement from Hanaguma:

"Given that the majority of relief supplies are stolen by Hamas, perhaps you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction."

Put up or...

[transam]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And yet you offer nothing yourself to support this statement from Hanaguma:

"Given that the majority of relief supplies are stolen by Hamas, perhaps you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction."

Put up or...

 

 

 

As the forum link king, I am surprised you never read anything on the issue....

[Rimmer]

COGAT

Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories: Judea and Samaria and towards the Gaza Strip | Coordinating and facilitating humanitarian aid for Gaza

[Bkk Brian]

7 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Judge Nawaf Salam just happens to be Lebanese.

 

He had a career at the UN, starting as a diplomatic representative for Lebanon, continuing as a senior beaurocrat before moving to the IC

J. He has some limited experience in practicing in the Law, but as never actually served as a judge, at any level, in any jurisdiction.

 

Wikipedia tells us that:" In the past, Nawaf has attracted attention on several occasions for statements critical of Israel. In 2015, he tweeted "#Israel Occupation of #Gaza & the #WestBank: UNHAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU - 48 YEARS OF OCCUPATION".^[14] Months later, the Jewish News Syndicate reported that he wrote: "Israel must stop the violence and end the occupation" and "portraying critics of Israeli policy as antisemites is an attempt to intimidate and discredit them, which we reject". Nawaf will preside over the case brought by South Africa against Israel."

 

Is It perhaps possible that, given the level of Iranian control over Lebanon, ( his various appointments will have been made with the consent of the Lebanese Government, which does not move without, in turn, the consent of Hezbollah) and his previous career, he could be regarded as a less than neutral jurist?

No bias whatsoever, honest guv

 

On the left is ICJ President Nawaf Salam today calling on Israel to halt its Rafah offensive. On the right is Salam in 2016, then the Lebanese ambassador to the UN, accusing Israel of apartheid, war crimes, and terror. Peak impartiality right here

 

https://twitter.com/EFischberger/status/1794006937807331819