193
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[-] Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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

[-] CollisionResistance@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

She voted against a resolution wherein even the Israeli judge voted yes.

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 4 points 7 months ago

In other words, continue military complain, just give some food.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago

Notably, they did NOT call whatever Israel has done as genocide.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

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".

this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
193 points (95.7% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2418 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS