World News

32323 readers

712 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

150

Israel Accuses the ICJ of (You Guessed it) Antisemitism (caitlinjohnstone.com.au)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (15 children)

The ruling did not instruct “ Israel to refrain from killing and harming Palestinians in the interim.”, as the article says, instead it only instructed to minimize civilian casualties as much as Israel can, according to the rules of war.

The rule also established that there are some characteristics of current situation described by SA that coincide with some characteristics of genocide, thus establishing disagreement between SA and Israel.

I see the current ruling as fair and actually favorable to Israel, since it does not call to stop war, nor calls the situation genocide.

But of course it does not prevent elements on both sides to claim some sort of victory and blame the other side for various sins and play victim at the same time.

Such world we live in.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Part one...'killing members of the group... ' '... Causing serious bodily harm to members of the group '

The order then says to stop doing everything in part one.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The Court considers that, with regard to the situation described above, Israel must, in
accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza,
take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article
II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; ...

Please note that the court does not state that Israel did not take measures to ensure that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The order was to stop genocide. The other option was to throw the case out.

The language is purposely broad for legal reasons, but apparently, people are taking it's broadness as a win for Israel.

This was definitely not a win for Israel.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No, the court did not recognize that there is genocide, thus it cannot give the order to stop. The court recognized that there might be a genocide, thus the case will proceed. The other two options were - there is no genocide (through the case away) and there is genocide. But none of these options were realized.

The court also reminded that there shouldn’t be genocide (but without stating that there is)

load more comments (13 replies)