> 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.
> 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.
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
I changed it to "indoctrination". Which is a more polite word that doesn't really do it justice, but it's not really important because the result, the inability to even meaningfully interact with the charges, is a constant.
As George Orwell put it, from the totalitarian perspective history is something to be created, rather than learned. Or as Robert Antelme described a concentration camp guard: "trapped in the machinery of his own myth". I just cannot find a flattering way to describe these things, there just is no material to work with for that.
The US would block anything against Israel anyway. The UN has no power when it comes to the security council members or their satellites.
> 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.
Those bodies have zero power and countries that want to massacre will kill no matter what.
Where, other than with mere hand waving? How did they explain away blowing courts and universities with rigged explosives? Soldiers bragging about "occupation, expulsion, settlement, annexiation"? All the talk about how there are no civilians in Gaza? How many people who said that has Israel prosecuted so far?
That's not in the intended spirit of what we want on HN, and especially not the spirit which I attempted to describe in my pinned comment at the top. Therefore, please stop.
* In fact, it looks like you've been doing nothing but that. I've already explained to you repeatedly and at length why that's not ok on HN. If you keep it up, we're going to have to ban you. (And lest anyone worry: no, this has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with your views. You're plainly breaking both HN's rules and intended spirit, that is all.)
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-...
Other countries have ignored the ICJ before.
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.
What it does say is
1. Israel must do more to prevent the possibility of genocide. Genocide is killing a people with the intent of killing them for the sake of destroying them, and not as collateral damage, so it does not mean stopping all death. Collateral damage, unfortunately, remains on the table.
2. Israel must report back in a month with how they are doing that. For example, they could show lower amounts of collateral damage, an increase in aid, punishments for officials that make statements that could be construed as genocidal, and so forth.
That is better than nothing, to be certain, but it is far from a ceasefire, unfortunately.
If you are a Palestinian over there, don’t go waving a white flag or you just become a target practise.
Sources:
https://www.itn.co.uk/news/palestinian-man-carrying-white-fl...
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-hostages-k...
I think there was a miscommunication. You said that the provisional measures said that Israel must stop killing Palestinians, and so there is no way to have a ceasefire. I was saying that what's actually in the provisional measures is a reiteration of the Genocide Convention, of which all countries must already abide, including Israel. Whether or not it's likely a country is commiting genocide or it's self defense, they haven't ruled on. I deliberately avoided any speculation with my comments.
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".
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.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2024/01/is...
Archive version: https://archive.ph/GV14c
I'm sure that you have legitimate reasons to feel the way you do, but you're posting to this thread in a way that is against the intended spirit, as I tried to explain it in the pinned comment at the top. Please don't do that. If you can't post in the intended spirit, that's understandable, but in that case please don't post until you can.
(Exactly the same thing, of course, goes for the commenters you're in disagreement with - for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39150923)
The argument goes that the ICJ derives its authority from the UN charter, where article 51 states "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security..."
So just because icj can tell someone to knock it off if they (falsely) claim the reason for the war is to prevent genocide, it is unclear they can do so when the reason is self-defense after an attack
[IANAL dont know how accurate this is]
The previous poster said the Palestinian dead are collateral while targeting Hamas terrorists. Not from direct action of Israel trying to kill uninvolved. He didn’t say there are no dead civilians. Any war has civilian casualties
Even if what they claim is true, as you can see from multiple sources, al Shifa hospital still stands and operational. The article has multiple inaccuracies. It glosses over the fact that many weapons were found inside the hospital (https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1213145028/israel-hamas-gaza-...), It ignores the fact that there was armed Hamas forces fighting Israeli military on hospital grounds (https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/11/13/hospital-gaz...). And just plain inaccuracy telling that the solar panels were the only source of electricity for the hospital, since the hospital was operating from the start of the war, up until today, with generators.
Additional, evidence for shelling: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/world/middleeast/israel-g...
> The UK, Australia, Italy and Canada have become the latest countries to pause funding for the UN agency for Palestinians, UNRWA.
Western countries stop sending relief to Palestinians in Gaza...
> This comes after the agency announced the sacking of several of its staff over allegations of involvement in the 7 October Hamas attacks.
> UNRWA says it has ordered an investigation into information supplied by Israel.
... because Israel alleged that it was the relief workers who were the terrorists.
In this matter, they are the judge of whether the actions are self defense, and they are the judge of whether the actions are genocidal. Otherwise, even the most monstrous and illegal acts could be excused by unilaterally declaring "self defense!". Russia, for example, also claimed all their actions were "self-defense", and continues to do so, to this day.
The similarities don't end there: Much like russia claims Ukraine isn't a real country, and should be demilitarized, and Ukrainians should be controlled by Russia; Israel claims Palestine isn't a real country, and should be demilitarized, and Palestinians should be controlled by Israel. Both Israel and russia attack civilian buildings full of civilians (!), and justify it by unconvincingly claiming there was a military target somewhere around there, plotting to harm them. russia usually doesn't level the entire block like Israel does, but not for want of trying. All in the name of "self-defense".
russia: goal is removing the government of Ukrainians by force and dominating Ukrainians. Israel: goal is removing the government of Palestinians by force and dominating Palestinians. russia: 'we must deprogram Ukrainians to remove their extremist, anti-russian feelings and get them to accept our domination of them'. Israel: 'we must deprogram Palestinians to remove their extremist, anti-Israel feelings and get them to accept our domination of them'. That last bit of abuser gaslighting is particularly gross and scary to me. All in the name of "self-defense".
With that in mind, the reasons claimed by each side for each action may inform the judges, who then judge what the actual reasons are, and rule accordingly. Indeed, Israel sought to have the case dismissed, claiming a jurisdictional issue like the one you suggested. The judges heard the arguments and evidence for and against such a claim, and judged that they had jurisdiction under the law.
Israel's participation in these proceedings, in front of the judges who judge such matters, on both jurisdiction and merit, seems to only further legitimize the judges and their judgement on such matters. Could Israel be cynical enough to join russia in doing an about-face on their recognition of the judges' legitimacy, simply for being ruled against?
Wake me up when they stop sending weapons to Netanyahu.
> ... because Israel alleged that it was the relief workers who were the terrorists.
Changes nothing. An opportunity for the rest of the non-genocidal world to come to Gaza's aid.
The rest of the world will continue to support the Palestinian people overcome this terrible evil being carried out by Zionist Israel.