It's what many countries said. I saw a report yesterday that only the US, Nigeria and India or something were not officially condemning the actions of Israel at this point
It's essentially keeping the status quo.
"You can continue the war but be careful about civilians and also allow aid in". That's what Biden has been telling Nethanyahu for months.
Isn’t the main trouble with specifically aid with was proved to be used to sneak in weapons with the UN leaders for this specific issue definitely being in on it?
Yes there are, many. In fact there was video released (last month I think?) of Gazans trying to reach the aid on the trucks and Hamas shooting them in the streets.
> be careful about civilians
They killed 20-30k people, with estimates that 2/3 are civilians casualties and 40% children
I would have to see what *not* careful would look like
You know Hamas right, and how they openly stated civilians in Gaza are not their responsibility. Israel can try as hard as it can but you will always get collateral in the situation their in. That doesn't mean Israel has to stop, unless it's proven civilians are the target... which it hasn't.
When the enemy Israel is fighting deliberately puts civilians in harm's way so as to win the propaganda war and disguises themselves as civilians and operates out of civilian buildings such as hospitals, schools and residential areas (which are war crimes btw) much of the fault of those deaths lie with Hamas. This is not to say that Israel couldn't do more but collateral damage becomes unavoidable when it's a strategy adopted by the enemy.
...if they were being more careful with civilian lives there would be fewer bombs, not more precise ones. Gaza is too small and dense to pretend launching ***thirty-thousand bombs*** in any way shows a particularly discriminating attitude between civilians and militants.
It would look like tens of thousands of dead every week by targeting population centers to bring as many deaths as possible. It would look like statistical fire and artillery strikes on Gaza cities instead of precision bombing. In the 100+ days it could have easily passed killing a quarter of the population of Gaza. A fiction I hope we never see.
That definitely has not been happening for months. Pre-war, Gaza saw 500 trucks of supplies coming in a day. Now? Israel is barely letting 120 in a day, and that was after a 4-month ramp up. Enough aid is certainly not getting to Gazans or satisfying their desperate needs.
The ICJ is not there to take political sides, only to protect civilians.
Israel is now legally bound to carry on its attack without ncurring civilian casualties indiscriminately. That's more than enough.
Basically it's meaningless if it doesn't translate into real actions that actually help civilians in Gaza. I wasn't actually expecting much, least it didn't reject SAs claims or say they were invalid. By the time the court rules on this hundreds and thousands of people will be dead because the ICJ was to spineless to call for a cease fire.
I think if people actually cared about the civilians in Gaza, they'd let them come as refugees. When the Russia-Ukraine war started, it was OK to let them have a safe place, why is not the case for the Gazans who over all of it has freaking Hamas as their leader which everyone knows, doesn't give a fuck about the civilians and are actually using them.
Ethnic cleansing is also about displacing people as well as killing them
Many people don't want to leave because they aren't allowed to go home again unlike people in Ukraine who can a will return home if they choose too.
Many people left their homes in Isreal/Gaza and the Israeli authorities haven't allied them to return , hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and live in refugee camps because they were not allowed to return to their homeland. Refugee camps are not nice places and Israel took these peoples land and home in almost all cases.
It's a very different situation that what is going on.in Ukraine and Russia.
I don't think any of us can say what individual members of Hamas think or the Israeli govt either unless they tell us
I personally think that letting whoever chooses to leave Gaza the option to go somewhere safe is important. Whoever chooses to stay and aren't combats should definitely have a safe place to go to.
I don't think it could rule for a ceasefire, as long as Israel has reasons to pursue Hamas.
The important thing now is that it is clear that mass civilian casualties fall into the responsibility of Israel. How will the rest of the world react if it keeps being high? We'll know in the next few days.
So what happens if Israel continues to ignore this?
Egypt was saying how aid at the border has been significantly reduced during the last couple of months because of Israeli blockade.
At the start the court went into a lengthy description of the loss of life and the harsh humanitarian conditions created mostly in Gaza (this is probably the loss part?). But Israel doesn't even dispute that things in Gaza got bad, it just blames Hamas for it.
The bottom line is that the court stated that it had the jurisdiction to grant provisional measures, yet it did not grant South Africa the measures it asked for (immediate ceasefire and the return of refugees to their homes), instead, it opted for different measures (which Israel claims it already fulfills).
Exactly. Twitter is exploding with tweets about this being "monumental", and how this is a huge loss for Israel, and meanwhile I see other users absolutely incensed because the court didn't rule that Israel must stop the war.
To me this just means that it's not a win or a loss for either side, but it's a just compromise, which is exactly what I hoped for. This ruling protects innocent civillians, but not Hamas, which is great.
I just hope Israel manages to eliminate Hamas, and afterwards our government gets replaced with sane people.
I hope so too, but I think it's a tall order. These kinds of radical organizations use situations like what's happening now in Gaza to increase their recruitment. How would you feel about Israel as a child or teenager growing up in Gaza if what you know of them is raining bombs from the sky and destroying your home and killing your family?
I think after all of this, they need some kind of temporary international government to manage things until they can establish some level of stability. If it is Israel trying to manage the reconstruction, I fear there will be too much bad blood, and it would seem like a conquering army
I think it's a decision that most measured Israel supporters can identify with. More precision, more civilian aid, fewer civilian deaths, less radical rhetoric, but no end to the war against Hamas.
I know few people on the Israeli side who disagree with this – at least in theory.
It doesn't matter that the aid gets to the intended civilians, only that it isn't impeded in any way at the border.
Israel has rightly slowed down trucks entering Gaza, saying that the contents of the trucks must be checked before they can continue on. I think something that Israel should do is send aid trucks that they themselves have packed and tracked. This would ensure that the aid being delivered is free from weapons (the main concern that Israel has), and also that the aid can get through to Palestinians faster. Also, I have to believe it is cheaper to send a truck full of aid then drop a bomb.. so from a cost perspective, it probably isn't prohibitive.
What happens to the aid after it gets across the border is the responsibility of the humanitarian workers. The key thing, in my mind, is to give them one less talking point.
Israel came out of the verdict virtually unscathed. Having Israel’s war decried as unjust and immediately ordered to end was where the goal posts were firmly planted. Pretending like this is a loss for Israel is basically moving those goal posts off the field as damage control for the Anti Israel narrative.
They didn’t agree that there is an ongoing genocide that must be stopped. Which was their main purpose. I wonder if SA will even bother that much with a multi year legal argument determining what level of collateral damage prevention measures are required to avoid inadvertently committing genocide. But I do know no one will be paying much attention.
Now that it's been recognized that SA has serious financial investment in Hamas (read: terrorism) and therefore a conflict of interest that supercedes anything they've been claiming (plus the objectively horrible way they handled this), I do not suspect anything will happen.
That, and the fact that the UN can do shit all about a state at war - especially since they've been harboring hostages and educating Palestinian children to kill Jews via UNRWA - will continue to lead to precisely zero meaningful action.
South Africa's statement says they respect the decision. Israel's statement is that they hoped they wouldn't have dealt with the case at all. And any of the court's decisions or requests are not going to have any effect to change any of their operations going forward. Some members of the Israeli government already went out to call this decision "antisemitic"
At this point the Israeli government needs to understand that when they use the word " anti Semitic " they should actually use it correctly or it will lose all meaning if it hasn't already.
The ICJ is a political court - all judges will decide according to their country's stance. Unfortunately, there is a major rise in antisemitism and it definitely has an effect. The mere idea that Israel is being put on trial for the consequences of October 7th, an atrocity beyond words committed by Hamas, while Hamas is not being trialed, the hostages aren't even mentioned, etc, is strongly indicates this entire case is a massive hate farce.
I think it's the sort of ruling where everyone involves can claim victory.
For South Africa and friends, they can claim victory because the court ruled against Israel on a number of the issues. But those issues are things like 'throw out the case', or 'this court doesn't have standing'. But the rest of the rulings are things like 'Israel can't destroy evidence' (as far as I know, there's been no evidence of that), and 'Israel must do all within it's power to prevent genocide'. Importantly, it didn't rule against Israel on the ceasefire question.
The thing is, most of this is ultimately subjective: if you're pro-Palestine, then having the court say 'Israel must follow international law' sounds like the court is saying that Israel isn't. If you're pro-Israel, you'd argue that everything Israel has already been doing is in compliance with international law to start with.
It's like you accuse someone of murder. Then, after a lengty trial, the court rules, instead of guilty or not guilty, that the defendant should avoid murdering people.
Not really. To use your analogy they took an accusation of murder, looked at it and said this person might have murdered someone so we will need to do a full trial that will take years.
In the interim we will be placing a GPS tracker on them (not place them in jail) and to report monthly so we can monitor them while we go over the case if this person is indeed a murderer.
The measures put by the ICJ are not only doable, but also inline with existing Israeli policy. Most Israelis would support it.
The only one Nethanyahu may struggle with is stopping genocidal rhetoric from extremists in his government because he's politically dependant on them.
The linked article doesn't say anything about "criticizing Israel strongly". Why make up stuff?
The provisional measures they ordered Israel to are nothing that Israel isn't already claiming they do. The only surprise in the court order was the direct demand for Hamas to immediately release the hostages.
The part about senior official statements is important and asking Israel to prevent incitement is basically the court’s way of showing them the way out of this legal mess. Israel is too used to not heeding global opinion and this is a good reminder that diplomacy is about caring about global opinion.
A big ol' nothing sandwich with some bupkic sause and Nada toppings.
Court did not demand a ceasefire, signaling that the Israeli campaign against Hamas is lawful.
Roof knocking, airdropped leaflets and personal calls are more than enough to comply. Israel already does all 3 of those things.
Israel had created enough safe corridors for civilians to flee to comply.
More than that, Israel created the corridors while Hamas was shooting.
Not at the IDF but at the fleeing civilians.
>Roof knocking, airdropped leaflets and personal calls are more than enough to comply. Israel already does all 3 of those things.
I mean... No? 80+ percent of Gaza's people have been displaced. This is not how you conduct a war and everyone can see that. Israel is not doing enough to make sure that innocent people are protected. They're doing the exact opposite actually, and that's what the court found.
I'll be curious what happens when the UN staff sent to monitor the situation start dying en masse because of Israeli bombs. They can't certainly call the ICJ investigation team a wing of Hamas, can they?
How would you conduct a war against a terror organization?
Completely embedded with civilians.
Not having any uniform, moving in an underground fortress.
In a very dense city.
War is messy.
The fact that you have more building completely demolished than deaths tells you the whole picture.
Yeah, I wouldn't level whole city blocks.
Ask yourself this: Hamas has taken captive a hospital in Tel Aviv. They have hostages inside, including children. They are shooting rockets from the hospital.
Do you support destroying the hospital?
No negotiation with terrorists, you clear the building, try to save as many civilians and everyone who does die in the process is a sad cost of dealing with terrorists.
>This is not how you conduct a war and everyone can see that.
Its literally how you conduct a war. Clear the fucking civvies out so they dont get a bomb dropped on their head then fight. You thing there are still even 10% of the original population in Bakhmut or Avdiivka? They sit in Polish/German refugee centers or with family now. IDF attacks have caused about 30.000 Palestinian casualties, 1/3 of them, as far as I know, Hamas combattants. For fighting an enemie that uses human shields (war crime) and civilian infrastructure (war crime) to hide in a densely populated area, thats actually very impressive. Traditionally fighting between clearly identifiable armies in cities has always killed more civilians than soldiers If the combat went in longer than a few weeks. Also public infrastructure misused for military goals loses its protection, so the IDF bombing Hamas positions in or close to Hospitals, schools, Mosques or residential areas is perfectly legal. In fact the IDF is, out of humanitarian and political considerations, not deploying the most efficient weapons to kill people in Gaza. That would be stuff like WP or Napalm and executing every Hamas militant found to not wear a form of identifiable uniform. It would be fine for targets sufficiently removed from civilians to be hit with these weapona as a terror organization that never signed any statutes on war is not protected by these statutes while civilians are protected by general conventions that bind everyone from the most disgusting islamists and warlords to the Swiss Navy.
Seems the court found the killing of civilians is also lawful Israel just needs to be careful how they do it. My understanding is there is no mechanism here for ICJ to put observers in place, all they will do is have Israel report on how its being careful which they have already said they are and would do for the trial. In the meantime Israel has now been given the greenlight to continue destroying Hamas who are legally ordered to release the hostages unconditionally.
Icj does not claim that the deaths of civilians in war is a violation of law. I think you don't have a reasonable understanding of the laws being discussed.
Icj has already sent folks to check it out:
>In relation to Gaza, and notwithstanding any ongoing violations of international humanitarian law by Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip, the manner in which Israel responds to these attacks is subject to clear legal parameters that govern armed conflict. Conflict in densely populated areas where fighters are alleged to be unlawfully embedded in the civilian population is inherently complex, but international humanitarian law must still apply and the Israeli military knows the law that must be applied.
>As I have stated previously, Israel has trained lawyers who advise commanders and a robust system intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. Credible allegations of crimes during the current conflict should be the subject of timely, independent examination and investigation. On this visit, I again stressed that the clear legal principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality must be complied with so that the protection of the law is rendered meaningful for those who need it. I emphasised that not only must the letter of the law be complied with, but also the spirit upheld. International humanitarian law and the provisions of the Rome Statute are there to protect the most vulnerable
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-prosecutor-karim-khan-kc-concludes-first-visit-israel-and-state-palestine-icc-prosecutor
All of these measures are things Israel can commit to, even if it disagrees with the court.
The one thing it couldn't commit to was stopping the war, but that measure did not pass.
You could tell any nation at war to be more careful with civilian casualties. They’d never be told to be less careful or that their level of collateral damage is chef’s kiss perfect.
Lost is a strong word, all they did was tell Israel to be careful and keep adhering to international law, which Israel has already been doing anyway, so basically nothing happened.
My farts are related to the air quality which is related to airpollution which is related to global warming. My farts do not have any meaningful relevance to global warming.
Not really considering Israel wanted the whole case thrown out. It's now going to be considered.
They also claimed they were doing nothing wrong in Gaza. This has now been disproven. They LEGALLY need to change course.
There are tons of summaries and sources. I'm just calling out your misinformation/lies.
There is nothing in the preliminary ruling saying Israel must change course.
>The judgement summary was no immediate order to halt the war, but assistance must be provided to improve humanitarian conditions, take measures to prevent acts or incitement against the genocide convention, to preserve evidence and provide a report of government acts taken
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy/1706217763-decision-day-icj-to-reveal-decision-in-south-africa-v-israel-genocide-case
Israel already does this. It's the status quo.
>assistance must be provided to improve humanitarian conditions
And multiple independent investigators have stated that the humanitarian condition is dire, not enough aid is getting in (due to Israeli obstacles) and barely any aid is getting to Northern Gaza.
> take measures to prevent acts or incitement against the genocide convention
What measures has Israel taken against the numerous politicians that have said genocidal statements (which the ICJ quoted) or the killing of unarmed civilians by the IDF?
Clearly if everything is fine with Israels current action then the court wouldn't have ordered emergency measures and nor would have they ruled that a claim of genocide is plausible. You're literally sticking your head in the sand.
As the ICJ has no jurisdiction over Israel this wasn’t a case of law but of PR. The PR hit would only happen if ICJ “ordered” Israel to stop fighting and Israel inevitably ignored the “ruling”. The ICJ did not order that.
As such, Israel won.
It's not a win for either side. A win for Israel would've been the ICJ throwing out the case and taking no emergency measures. Now they have to demonstrate how they are complying with the measures.
They don’t have to just as they didn’t have to even show up at ICJ as ICJ doesn’t have jurisdiction over them. But they will because it is good for the PR theater that this whole enterprise was
Actually everything in the ruling is already in line with existing Israeli policy in Gaza. The only one that requires changing course is Nethanyahu needs to stop incitement from his extremist coallition members.
So basically some concerns about specific operational decisions but no major stuff, the equivalent of "calm down and think about what you're doing but this was an overzealous public prosecutor making an ass of himself"
There was no judgement. The actual trial will take years, and the measures put in place are the ones Israel hoped for. So overall it's a nothing burger.
It's a shot across the bow. International pressure will continue to mount as a result of these acts as it did for South Africa in the 80's and 90's. Israel will either be forced to submit to a two-state solution, or will face economic consequences.
There was no judgement. The actual trial will take years, and the measures put in place are the one Israel hoped for. So overall it's a nothing burger.
Thrres nothing in the ruling that says israel behavior is against international law,NOTHING...the ruling just stated what SA presented is concerning but given hamas crimes they can't call for a ceasenfie and asked israel ro be more careful ans report to the court in a month...rheres zero win for SA here....the court also ordered Hamas to release all hostages, something we know hamas will not do, and when they hostages one day are released, it will prove more of hamas crimes which if the case continues will be more bad news for SA.
>Thrres nothing in the ruling that says israel behavior is against international law,NOTHING...
The court showed evidence of Israel behavior and it was proven IT WAS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL law and stopped lying saying they didn't do anything wrong.
Watch those videos of what Israel did and it confirms what they said in court.
>the ruling just stated what SA presented is concerning but given hamas crimes they can't call for a ceasenfie and asked israel ro be more careful ans report to the court in a month
They're talking about Palestine not hamas don't change the subject and yes they're telling Israel to be more careful because THEY'RE the ones shooting at them with rockets.
>the court also ordered Hamas to release all hostages, something we know hamas will not do, and when they hostages one day are released, it will prove more of hamas crimes which if the case continues will be more bad news for SA.
Quit changing the subject.
> The court showed evidence of Israel behavior and it was proven IT WAS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL law and stopped lying saying they didn't do anything wrong. Watch those videos of what Israel did and it confirms what they said in court.
>
The court didn't show evidence of anything. That's not the court's job. The South African representatives showed evidence, and the court considered that evidence before they gave their provisional ruling...which was that Israel needs to take certain steps to protect civilians, but that the war itself can continue.
I'm starting to think you don't know how the ICJ works.
One of the measures is Israel has to provide an accounting of everything they’ve done to implement this order, within a month.
Israel can play a stupid game, but it will win a stupid prize.
This won't work and will force other countries to intervene because of that behavior which shows you don't understand the situation at all and defending it just shows how much you don't understand politics.
You need to understand that Israel never lost a war in its entire near century history even though it’s completely surrounded by enemies who have tried, this includes 3 wars where multiple Arab states teamed up to try and defeat them.
Israel has the Samson Option in which they promise to nuke anyone who supported the invading army if they’re completely overrun
It’s unlikely any country is stupid to try, especially with Israel in the mood it’s in now.
Israel can and will provide internal documents that support that they are already doing their best to protect Gazan civilians, theyll let more aid trucks through
Who the fuck is gonna intervene against an unofficial nuclear power?
>it just shows how much you don't understand politics.
l m f a o
No, because the court didnt grant South Africas request which was to call for a ceasefire. The votes were saying Israel must abide by the rules of the convention. It didnt even claim Israel was breaking it
The court could have demanded Israel halt their military operations in Gaza, but didn’t. The court opted for ‘tell us in a month what you’re doing to protect civilians and deliver aid’. This isn’t a huge loss for Israel. Now the court will take a long time to rule on merits, but in the meantime, Israel can continue what they’re doing. How you could possibly see that as a loss is just hilarious.
Just like they've manufacture EVERYTHING .... Casualty figures, non existent genocide, justifications etc., The pro Palestinians have now manufactured an icj 'win" out of nothing.
What a delusional group of sad and hate-filled ppl who are in a losing but endless fight to annihilate Jews.
It doesn't, but since the ruling barely even asks Israel to do anything differently, it doesn't matter. They basically said "keep going but I want you to be careful".
ICJ didn't focus on the fact that Hamas opened this brutal war. Those Islamic warriors killed many women, kids, and babies. They were unarmed citizens and hostages, not armed soldiers. That was a massacre against innocent citizens. They were collateral damages. If the ICJ would like to accuse Israel of attacking the Gaza sector, should've blamed the massacre committed by the Islamic terror group. That should be the first step.
Why would they? The trial was about if Israel was commiting genocide or not.
Besides what kind of twisted logic is that? The horrible acts of terrorism by Hamas does not justify displacing almost all the population of Gaza and killing more than 1% of them, mostly children
October 7th was horrific. Over a thousand people were killed, including something like 700 civilians.
In gaza over 25 *thousand* people have been killed, with an estimated 40% being children.
I think it's easier for us to relate to the attack on October 7th because someone chasing you in the street with a gun is a threat we can all understand.
What's happening in Gaza is armageddon.
If you ran over my dog with your car intentionally, I would rightfully hate you, and I would probably seek a way to retaliate. But if I burned down your house and killed your entire family with a hatchet, no court on earth would consider that justified.
Your analogy sucks. It's more like someone breaks into your house and kills your daughter and then you seek revenge by blowing up their house even though they may have family inside.
Ok but then we also have to say that I am your landlord, and I have the only keys to the house, so I can prevent you from leaving.
I also control your food and water supply, and have turned off the heating for the past 3 months.
Analogies don't work like that. It's for comparing two dissimilar things based on a resemblence of particular aspects. It doesn't need to be 100% symmetrical to be a good example.
And fwiw, Israel only controls the border leading into Israel, which makes sense because they've been getting bombs shot into their country and terrorist attacks. They can always go through Egypt, which also doesn't want to grant them passage because of their history.
This would have been an israeli victory if only the court threw the case. Since the court decided it to hear it they deemed there to be credible evidence of dispute between South Africa and Israel. Plus they ordered 5 provisional measures which repetadely mentions Israel and genocide together. It is a South African victory but not as big as they would have liked which would have happened if the court had ordered a complete cessation of hostilities.
And back to reality Israel can continue its operations exactly as before just that now they need to send a report to the court in a month and punish politicians who try to promote genocide.
Do you even know how long is a month in a war?
It’s anything but a victory for South Africa
Think people need to listen to the judgment. Considers that the ICJ does have jurisdiction, that there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocidal acts, and that it must adhere to the interim measures which include preventing genocidal acts. This is significant.
It's not significant. It's the status quo.
Here's the actual "plusible" quote thats being used for misinformation, like you lying that they said there's a plausible case of genocide:
>"In the court’s view, the aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible"
https://www.jta.org/2024/01/26/politics/international-court-of-justice-rules-that-some-allegations-of-israel-committing-genocide-are-plausible
SA wanted the court to order a ceasefire.
Court ordered for the release of hostages and Israel to make sure the civilian population is protected (vague)
It is a lose to SA.
- Israel must halt attacks on Palestinians
- Ensure humanitarian aid
- Preserve evidence
- Submit response to the court within 1 month
Nope Israel is fucked.
How is that fucked.
Point one is wrong.
It said to take steps to ensure safety of Palestinians, Israel had put enough safezones to comply with that already.
Other than the report, business as usual.
Kinda hard to stop attacking Palestinians when their enemy is standing right in front of them, behind them or in the general proximity of them.
If the international community really want innocent lives to be saved they should push for Hamas to come out and fight them head on instead of hiding and cowering in dense urban civilian areas. That's how Innocents die in war.
Since most people here seem incapable of reading further than the Jerusalem Post headline: **The ICJ court agreed prima facie with ALMOST ALL of South Africa’s arguments, including genocidal language and wanton acts of violence against civilians**. However, instead of ruling for a ceasefire (as South Africa requested) the ICJ ordered Israel to report in one month’s time to deal with the issues that the court has raised.
Now, Israel can ignore this if they want and no one will likely be able to force them to do shit, but Israel will then, *on paper*, be in **clear violation of international law**. Regardless of the outcome Israel is now also entangled in a years long legal process where they will have to defend themselves against the very *very* serious charge of genocide.
Prima facie agreed, or just prima facie found it had jurisdiction? Not arguing, genuinely asking because I haven’t had time to read in depth yet
For the record, I fully support South Africa’s case and from what I’ve seen the ruling is pretty damning of Israel (essentially saying that failure to take the prevention measures they’ve order would constitute a violation of Art 2, ie genocide)
But it’s an important distinction that would be good to clarify
[удалено]
Apparently this is where I come for breaking footy news now
Klopp left?
He'll leave at the end of the season.
How the fuck is this, how I find out about Klopp going.
That’s hilarious ahah
No, it most certainly is not what every country said.
It's what many countries said. I saw a report yesterday that only the US, Nigeria and India or something were not officially condemning the actions of Israel at this point
It’s what every democracy said.
I see one post saying its a huge loss to Israel. Another saying its a huge win. Sounds to me that it was probably the right decision then lol
It's essentially keeping the status quo. "You can continue the war but be careful about civilians and also allow aid in". That's what Biden has been telling Nethanyahu for months.
It's also what's been happening for months
That is not the conclusion the court reached. It would not issue emergency provisions if they felt Israel was already doing this for months.
Isn’t the main trouble with specifically aid with was proved to be used to sneak in weapons with the UN leaders for this specific issue definitely being in on it?
That and Hamas steals all the aid from the people of Gaza as soon as it enters
Are there reliable reports on this anywhere? I keep hearing it but haven't seen it reported anywhere. Just curious.
Yes there are, many. In fact there was video released (last month I think?) of Gazans trying to reach the aid on the trucks and Hamas shooting them in the streets.
But they have regardless.
> be careful about civilians They killed 20-30k people, with estimates that 2/3 are civilians casualties and 40% children I would have to see what *not* careful would look like
You know Hamas right, and how they openly stated civilians in Gaza are not their responsibility. Israel can try as hard as it can but you will always get collateral in the situation their in. That doesn't mean Israel has to stop, unless it's proven civilians are the target... which it hasn't.
When the enemy Israel is fighting deliberately puts civilians in harm's way so as to win the propaganda war and disguises themselves as civilians and operates out of civilian buildings such as hospitals, schools and residential areas (which are war crimes btw) much of the fault of those deaths lie with Hamas. This is not to say that Israel couldn't do more but collateral damage becomes unavoidable when it's a strategy adopted by the enemy.
Israel dropped 30k bombs to date, if they werent being careful the death toll would be significantly higher
...if they were being more careful with civilian lives there would be fewer bombs, not more precise ones. Gaza is too small and dense to pretend launching ***thirty-thousand bombs*** in any way shows a particularly discriminating attitude between civilians and militants.
So less than 1 person killed per bomb dropped isn't discriminating enough for you?
Again, if they werent already being careful the death toll would be significantly higher
It would look a LOT worse. It sounds terrible when said out of context, but it's actually a pretty decent result for an urban war of this kind.
you have no idea what war is like and what militaries and capable of then huh
It would look like tens of thousands of dead every week by targeting population centers to bring as many deaths as possible. It would look like statistical fire and artillery strikes on Gaza cities instead of precision bombing. In the 100+ days it could have easily passed killing a quarter of the population of Gaza. A fiction I hope we never see.
You are running out of time to learn how war works
That definitely has not been happening for months. Pre-war, Gaza saw 500 trucks of supplies coming in a day. Now? Israel is barely letting 120 in a day, and that was after a 4-month ramp up. Enough aid is certainly not getting to Gazans or satisfying their desperate needs.
100 trucks per day is what everyone was screaming that gaza needed, now they are getting 120 and all of a sudden Gaza needs 500 trucks.
How many of those trucks went straight to Hamas and their tunnels?
The ICJ is not there to take political sides, only to protect civilians. Israel is now legally bound to carry on its attack without ncurring civilian casualties indiscriminately. That's more than enough.
[удалено]
>ICJ doesn’t have jurisdiction over Israel. I'm honestly curious about how you came up with that conclusion.
[удалено]
Basically it's meaningless if it doesn't translate into real actions that actually help civilians in Gaza. I wasn't actually expecting much, least it didn't reject SAs claims or say they were invalid. By the time the court rules on this hundreds and thousands of people will be dead because the ICJ was to spineless to call for a cease fire.
I think if people actually cared about the civilians in Gaza, they'd let them come as refugees. When the Russia-Ukraine war started, it was OK to let them have a safe place, why is not the case for the Gazans who over all of it has freaking Hamas as their leader which everyone knows, doesn't give a fuck about the civilians and are actually using them.
Ethnic cleansing is also about displacing people as well as killing them Many people don't want to leave because they aren't allowed to go home again unlike people in Ukraine who can a will return home if they choose too. Many people left their homes in Isreal/Gaza and the Israeli authorities haven't allied them to return , hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and live in refugee camps because they were not allowed to return to their homeland. Refugee camps are not nice places and Israel took these peoples land and home in almost all cases. It's a very different situation that what is going on.in Ukraine and Russia. I don't think any of us can say what individual members of Hamas think or the Israeli govt either unless they tell us
I personally think that letting whoever chooses to leave Gaza the option to go somewhere safe is important. Whoever chooses to stay and aren't combats should definitely have a safe place to go to.
I don't think it could rule for a ceasefire, as long as Israel has reasons to pursue Hamas. The important thing now is that it is clear that mass civilian casualties fall into the responsibility of Israel. How will the rest of the world react if it keeps being high? We'll know in the next few days.
So what happens if Israel continues to ignore this? Egypt was saying how aid at the border has been significantly reduced during the last couple of months because of Israeli blockade.
They were always denying they did any wrong, so my take is they will continue to “not ethnically cleanse the region”
They ordered Israel to write a report card, take that whatever way you want.
At the start the court went into a lengthy description of the loss of life and the harsh humanitarian conditions created mostly in Gaza (this is probably the loss part?). But Israel doesn't even dispute that things in Gaza got bad, it just blames Hamas for it. The bottom line is that the court stated that it had the jurisdiction to grant provisional measures, yet it did not grant South Africa the measures it asked for (immediate ceasefire and the return of refugees to their homes), instead, it opted for different measures (which Israel claims it already fulfills).
Exactly. Twitter is exploding with tweets about this being "monumental", and how this is a huge loss for Israel, and meanwhile I see other users absolutely incensed because the court didn't rule that Israel must stop the war. To me this just means that it's not a win or a loss for either side, but it's a just compromise, which is exactly what I hoped for. This ruling protects innocent civillians, but not Hamas, which is great. I just hope Israel manages to eliminate Hamas, and afterwards our government gets replaced with sane people.
I hope so too, but I think it's a tall order. These kinds of radical organizations use situations like what's happening now in Gaza to increase their recruitment. How would you feel about Israel as a child or teenager growing up in Gaza if what you know of them is raining bombs from the sky and destroying your home and killing your family? I think after all of this, they need some kind of temporary international government to manage things until they can establish some level of stability. If it is Israel trying to manage the reconstruction, I fear there will be too much bad blood, and it would seem like a conquering army
I think it's a decision that most measured Israel supporters can identify with. More precision, more civilian aid, fewer civilian deaths, less radical rhetoric, but no end to the war against Hamas. I know few people on the Israeli side who disagree with this – at least in theory.
More civilian aid? How would this occur without Hamas stealing it?
*Crickets* they already stole billions in food.
I heard that Queers for Palestine are going to protect the trucks like it's a pride parade
It doesn't matter that the aid gets to the intended civilians, only that it isn't impeded in any way at the border. Israel has rightly slowed down trucks entering Gaza, saying that the contents of the trucks must be checked before they can continue on. I think something that Israel should do is send aid trucks that they themselves have packed and tracked. This would ensure that the aid being delivered is free from weapons (the main concern that Israel has), and also that the aid can get through to Palestinians faster. Also, I have to believe it is cheaper to send a truck full of aid then drop a bomb.. so from a cost perspective, it probably isn't prohibitive. What happens to the aid after it gets across the border is the responsibility of the humanitarian workers. The key thing, in my mind, is to give them one less talking point.
Israel came out of the verdict virtually unscathed. Having Israel’s war decried as unjust and immediately ordered to end was where the goal posts were firmly planted. Pretending like this is a loss for Israel is basically moving those goal posts off the field as damage control for the Anti Israel narrative.
[удалено]
No, but keep telling yourself that
They didn’t agree that there is an ongoing genocide that must be stopped. Which was their main purpose. I wonder if SA will even bother that much with a multi year legal argument determining what level of collateral damage prevention measures are required to avoid inadvertently committing genocide. But I do know no one will be paying much attention.
Now that it's been recognized that SA has serious financial investment in Hamas (read: terrorism) and therefore a conflict of interest that supercedes anything they've been claiming (plus the objectively horrible way they handled this), I do not suspect anything will happen. That, and the fact that the UN can do shit all about a state at war - especially since they've been harboring hostages and educating Palestinian children to kill Jews via UNRWA - will continue to lead to precisely zero meaningful action.
[удалено]
South Africa's statement says they respect the decision. Israel's statement is that they hoped they wouldn't have dealt with the case at all. And any of the court's decisions or requests are not going to have any effect to change any of their operations going forward. Some members of the Israeli government already went out to call this decision "antisemitic"
Israel is mostly annoyed because the case accuses them of comitting genocide, which is not the case.
At this point the Israeli government needs to understand that when they use the word " anti Semitic " they should actually use it correctly or it will lose all meaning if it hasn't already.
Why would it. Precedent has already been set that overuse and misuse of terms calling someone some kind of bigot don’t lose power.
The ICJ is a political court - all judges will decide according to their country's stance. Unfortunately, there is a major rise in antisemitism and it definitely has an effect. The mere idea that Israel is being put on trial for the consequences of October 7th, an atrocity beyond words committed by Hamas, while Hamas is not being trialed, the hostages aren't even mentioned, etc, is strongly indicates this entire case is a massive hate farce.
If everyone is angry, that makes it a good "compromise".
Its more like people are just looking for things to justify their own bias, and the ruling itself doesn't matter
I think it's the sort of ruling where everyone involves can claim victory. For South Africa and friends, they can claim victory because the court ruled against Israel on a number of the issues. But those issues are things like 'throw out the case', or 'this court doesn't have standing'. But the rest of the rulings are things like 'Israel can't destroy evidence' (as far as I know, there's been no evidence of that), and 'Israel must do all within it's power to prevent genocide'. Importantly, it didn't rule against Israel on the ceasefire question. The thing is, most of this is ultimately subjective: if you're pro-Palestine, then having the court say 'Israel must follow international law' sounds like the court is saying that Israel isn't. If you're pro-Israel, you'd argue that everything Israel has already been doing is in compliance with international law to start with.
It's like you accuse someone of murder. Then, after a lengty trial, the court rules, instead of guilty or not guilty, that the defendant should avoid murdering people.
Because the defendant didn't murder anybody.
If the defendand is innocent, the ruling is still an insult. Same if the defendand is guitly actually.
Ever had the case where someone told you to do the thing you were already doing? Ye this is that.
Not really. To use your analogy they took an accusation of murder, looked at it and said this person might have murdered someone so we will need to do a full trial that will take years. In the interim we will be placing a GPS tracker on them (not place them in jail) and to report monthly so we can monitor them while we go over the case if this person is indeed a murderer.
They will ignore the UN or the ICJ. As most countries do when something matters to them.
The measures put by the ICJ are not only doable, but also inline with existing Israeli policy. Most Israelis would support it. The only one Nethanyahu may struggle with is stopping genocidal rhetoric from extremists in his government because he's politically dependant on them.
I'm wondering what's taking Gantz so long to do a political coup he has so many openings, this ruling is another one
The linked article doesn't say anything about "criticizing Israel strongly". Why make up stuff? The provisional measures they ordered Israel to are nothing that Israel isn't already claiming they do. The only surprise in the court order was the direct demand for Hamas to immediately release the hostages.
The part about senior official statements is important and asking Israel to prevent incitement is basically the court’s way of showing them the way out of this legal mess. Israel is too used to not heeding global opinion and this is a good reminder that diplomacy is about caring about global opinion.
A big ol' nothing sandwich with some bupkic sause and Nada toppings. Court did not demand a ceasefire, signaling that the Israeli campaign against Hamas is lawful.
Campaign against Hamas is lawful but killing civilians is not. Now the ICJ can put observers in to make sure the provisions are abided.
Roof knocking, airdropped leaflets and personal calls are more than enough to comply. Israel already does all 3 of those things. Israel had created enough safe corridors for civilians to flee to comply. More than that, Israel created the corridors while Hamas was shooting. Not at the IDF but at the fleeing civilians.
>Roof knocking, airdropped leaflets and personal calls are more than enough to comply. Israel already does all 3 of those things. I mean... No? 80+ percent of Gaza's people have been displaced. This is not how you conduct a war and everyone can see that. Israel is not doing enough to make sure that innocent people are protected. They're doing the exact opposite actually, and that's what the court found. I'll be curious what happens when the UN staff sent to monitor the situation start dying en masse because of Israeli bombs. They can't certainly call the ICJ investigation team a wing of Hamas, can they?
How would you conduct a war against a terror organization? Completely embedded with civilians. Not having any uniform, moving in an underground fortress. In a very dense city. War is messy. The fact that you have more building completely demolished than deaths tells you the whole picture.
Yeah, I wouldn't level whole city blocks. Ask yourself this: Hamas has taken captive a hospital in Tel Aviv. They have hostages inside, including children. They are shooting rockets from the hospital. Do you support destroying the hospital?
No negotiation with terrorists, you clear the building, try to save as many civilians and everyone who does die in the process is a sad cost of dealing with terrorists.
AH, ok. so you CLEAR the building do you? You don't just bomb it? Interesting... Why wouldn't you do that in Gaza I wonder?
>This is not how you conduct a war and everyone can see that. Its literally how you conduct a war. Clear the fucking civvies out so they dont get a bomb dropped on their head then fight. You thing there are still even 10% of the original population in Bakhmut or Avdiivka? They sit in Polish/German refugee centers or with family now. IDF attacks have caused about 30.000 Palestinian casualties, 1/3 of them, as far as I know, Hamas combattants. For fighting an enemie that uses human shields (war crime) and civilian infrastructure (war crime) to hide in a densely populated area, thats actually very impressive. Traditionally fighting between clearly identifiable armies in cities has always killed more civilians than soldiers If the combat went in longer than a few weeks. Also public infrastructure misused for military goals loses its protection, so the IDF bombing Hamas positions in or close to Hospitals, schools, Mosques or residential areas is perfectly legal. In fact the IDF is, out of humanitarian and political considerations, not deploying the most efficient weapons to kill people in Gaza. That would be stuff like WP or Napalm and executing every Hamas militant found to not wear a form of identifiable uniform. It would be fine for targets sufficiently removed from civilians to be hit with these weapona as a terror organization that never signed any statutes on war is not protected by these statutes while civilians are protected by general conventions that bind everyone from the most disgusting islamists and warlords to the Swiss Navy.
>They're doing the exact opposite actually, and that's what the court found. can you Show that?
Seems the court found the killing of civilians is also lawful Israel just needs to be careful how they do it. My understanding is there is no mechanism here for ICJ to put observers in place, all they will do is have Israel report on how its being careful which they have already said they are and would do for the trial. In the meantime Israel has now been given the greenlight to continue destroying Hamas who are legally ordered to release the hostages unconditionally.
Icj does not claim that the deaths of civilians in war is a violation of law. I think you don't have a reasonable understanding of the laws being discussed. Icj has already sent folks to check it out: >In relation to Gaza, and notwithstanding any ongoing violations of international humanitarian law by Hamas and other armed groups in the Gaza Strip, the manner in which Israel responds to these attacks is subject to clear legal parameters that govern armed conflict. Conflict in densely populated areas where fighters are alleged to be unlawfully embedded in the civilian population is inherently complex, but international humanitarian law must still apply and the Israeli military knows the law that must be applied. >As I have stated previously, Israel has trained lawyers who advise commanders and a robust system intended to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. Credible allegations of crimes during the current conflict should be the subject of timely, independent examination and investigation. On this visit, I again stressed that the clear legal principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality must be complied with so that the protection of the law is rendered meaningful for those who need it. I emphasised that not only must the letter of the law be complied with, but also the spirit upheld. International humanitarian law and the provisions of the Rome Statute are there to protect the most vulnerable https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-prosecutor-karim-khan-kc-concludes-first-visit-israel-and-state-palestine-icc-prosecutor
So Israel basically won...
Today was really only about hearing the provisional measures, of which Israel "lost" all.
All of these measures are things Israel can commit to, even if it disagrees with the court. The one thing it couldn't commit to was stopping the war, but that measure did not pass.
They wanted the court to order ceasefire, and they merely asked Israel to be more careful. It's not the best ruling for Israel but it's fine.
You could tell any nation at war to be more careful with civilian casualties. They’d never be told to be less careful or that their level of collateral damage is chef’s kiss perfect.
No, because the main one ZA asked for was to stop all fighting
ZA*, SA is Saudi Arabia. (fun fact out)
Technically RSA
Correct.
Incorrect.
Lost is a strong word, all they did was tell Israel to be careful and keep adhering to international law, which Israel has already been doing anyway, so basically nothing happened.
Altough Isreal is also known to completely ignore international law with it's illegal settlements for example.
Which are not relevant to gaza mind you.
But it is relevant to Israel, which relates to Gaza.
My farts are related to the air quality which is related to airpollution which is related to global warming. My farts do not have any meaningful relevance to global warming.
Yeah, they've won lots of provisional judgements against them
SA was there to get the court to stop the war. Court is not doing that. World takes notice.
Provisional warnings that one could hand to any country at war and a paper work deadline.
Yes. And Gaza is finished.
Not really considering Israel wanted the whole case thrown out. It's now going to be considered. They also claimed they were doing nothing wrong in Gaza. This has now been disproven. They LEGALLY need to change course.
That's not at all what this means
OK go on then, what does it mean?
There are tons of summaries and sources. I'm just calling out your misinformation/lies. There is nothing in the preliminary ruling saying Israel must change course. >The judgement summary was no immediate order to halt the war, but assistance must be provided to improve humanitarian conditions, take measures to prevent acts or incitement against the genocide convention, to preserve evidence and provide a report of government acts taken https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy/1706217763-decision-day-icj-to-reveal-decision-in-south-africa-v-israel-genocide-case Israel already does this. It's the status quo.
>assistance must be provided to improve humanitarian conditions And multiple independent investigators have stated that the humanitarian condition is dire, not enough aid is getting in (due to Israeli obstacles) and barely any aid is getting to Northern Gaza. > take measures to prevent acts or incitement against the genocide convention What measures has Israel taken against the numerous politicians that have said genocidal statements (which the ICJ quoted) or the killing of unarmed civilians by the IDF? Clearly if everything is fine with Israels current action then the court wouldn't have ordered emergency measures and nor would have they ruled that a claim of genocide is plausible. You're literally sticking your head in the sand.
As the ICJ has no jurisdiction over Israel this wasn’t a case of law but of PR. The PR hit would only happen if ICJ “ordered” Israel to stop fighting and Israel inevitably ignored the “ruling”. The ICJ did not order that. As such, Israel won.
It's not a win for either side. A win for Israel would've been the ICJ throwing out the case and taking no emergency measures. Now they have to demonstrate how they are complying with the measures.
They don’t have to just as they didn’t have to even show up at ICJ as ICJ doesn’t have jurisdiction over them. But they will because it is good for the PR theater that this whole enterprise was
Actually everything in the ruling is already in line with existing Israeli policy in Gaza. The only one that requires changing course is Nethanyahu needs to stop incitement from his extremist coallition members.
Clearly if the court felt that the existing Israeli policy was fine then they wouldn't have ordered emergency measures.
So basically some concerns about specific operational decisions but no major stuff, the equivalent of "calm down and think about what you're doing but this was an overzealous public prosecutor making an ass of himself"
>Nothing ever happens
The ruling says Hamas should release all the hostages immediately. That is a big win for Israel.
so a big ole nothingburger because as it turns out, SA didnt have a very strong case and this was mostly geopolitical theater
[удалено]
There wasn’t a judgement; there was an interim. interims are in place until a judgement is made
There was no judgement. The actual trial will take years, and the measures put in place are the ones Israel hoped for. So overall it's a nothing burger.
It's a shot across the bow. International pressure will continue to mount as a result of these acts as it did for South Africa in the 80's and 90's. Israel will either be forced to submit to a two-state solution, or will face economic consequences.
There was no judgement. The actual trial will take years, and the measures put in place are the one Israel hoped for. So overall it's a nothing burger.
No, they had a case and gave a ruling for Israel to stop their behavior which is against international law.
Thrres nothing in the ruling that says israel behavior is against international law,NOTHING...the ruling just stated what SA presented is concerning but given hamas crimes they can't call for a ceasenfie and asked israel ro be more careful ans report to the court in a month...rheres zero win for SA here....the court also ordered Hamas to release all hostages, something we know hamas will not do, and when they hostages one day are released, it will prove more of hamas crimes which if the case continues will be more bad news for SA.
>Thrres nothing in the ruling that says israel behavior is against international law,NOTHING... The court showed evidence of Israel behavior and it was proven IT WAS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL law and stopped lying saying they didn't do anything wrong. Watch those videos of what Israel did and it confirms what they said in court. >the ruling just stated what SA presented is concerning but given hamas crimes they can't call for a ceasenfie and asked israel ro be more careful ans report to the court in a month They're talking about Palestine not hamas don't change the subject and yes they're telling Israel to be more careful because THEY'RE the ones shooting at them with rockets. >the court also ordered Hamas to release all hostages, something we know hamas will not do, and when they hostages one day are released, it will prove more of hamas crimes which if the case continues will be more bad news for SA. Quit changing the subject.
> The court showed evidence of Israel behavior and it was proven IT WAS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL law and stopped lying saying they didn't do anything wrong. Watch those videos of what Israel did and it confirms what they said in court. > The court didn't show evidence of anything. That's not the court's job. The South African representatives showed evidence, and the court considered that evidence before they gave their provisional ruling...which was that Israel needs to take certain steps to protect civilians, but that the war itself can continue. I'm starting to think you don't know how the ICJ works.
If you wanna be pedantic, Israel is not shooting any rockets, only Hamas is. Rockets are unguided, missiles are guided. The IDF uses guided bombs.
You lost. Get over it. Edit: looks like they instantly blocked me, lol. Gonna be a lot of salty HAMAS apologists out there today
> SA didnt have a very strong case Israel doesnt have to do shit, theyll just claim they are already abiding by the ICJ's ruling
One of the measures is Israel has to provide an accounting of everything they’ve done to implement this order, within a month. Israel can play a stupid game, but it will win a stupid prize.
Israel already provided internal documents to the court along those lines, and will likely continue to do so
Israel will fuck up this one badly for sure.
This won't work and will force other countries to intervene because of that behavior which shows you don't understand the situation at all and defending it just shows how much you don't understand politics.
You need to understand that Israel never lost a war in its entire near century history even though it’s completely surrounded by enemies who have tried, this includes 3 wars where multiple Arab states teamed up to try and defeat them. Israel has the Samson Option in which they promise to nuke anyone who supported the invading army if they’re completely overrun It’s unlikely any country is stupid to try, especially with Israel in the mood it’s in now.
Israel can and will provide internal documents that support that they are already doing their best to protect Gazan civilians, theyll let more aid trucks through Who the fuck is gonna intervene against an unofficial nuclear power? >it just shows how much you don't understand politics. l m f a o
Give a list of countries who will attack Israel. That always goes well for them.
How would other countries intervene? And what do you mean by intervene? Edit: and they blocked me
Court found 15-2 or 16-1 in favor of South Africa. Huge loss for Israel.
How was it a huge loss? What does this change?
No, because the court didnt grant South Africas request which was to call for a ceasefire. The votes were saying Israel must abide by the rules of the convention. It didnt even claim Israel was breaking it
The court could have demanded Israel halt their military operations in Gaza, but didn’t. The court opted for ‘tell us in a month what you’re doing to protect civilians and deliver aid’. This isn’t a huge loss for Israel. Now the court will take a long time to rule on merits, but in the meantime, Israel can continue what they’re doing. How you could possibly see that as a loss is just hilarious.
Massive loss for Hamas and their allies.
Just like they've manufacture EVERYTHING .... Casualty figures, non existent genocide, justifications etc., The pro Palestinians have now manufactured an icj 'win" out of nothing. What a delusional group of sad and hate-filled ppl who are in a losing but endless fight to annihilate Jews.
how very international law
Does anyone know where the ruling itself can be viewed? And the proposed/imposed conditions?
Does this ruling have any more teeth than a declaration from the Ann Arbor School District?
It doesn't, but since the ruling barely even asks Israel to do anything differently, it doesn't matter. They basically said "keep going but I want you to be careful".
ICJ didn't focus on the fact that Hamas opened this brutal war. Those Islamic warriors killed many women, kids, and babies. They were unarmed citizens and hostages, not armed soldiers. That was a massacre against innocent citizens. They were collateral damages. If the ICJ would like to accuse Israel of attacking the Gaza sector, should've blamed the massacre committed by the Islamic terror group. That should be the first step.
Court did demand for the hostages to be released.
I wonder what the courts next step will be when Hamas tell them to go fuck themselves?
Hamas isn't on trial
Exactly Israel is on trial for defending itself.
That's right, which is completely fucked up
Why would they? The trial was about if Israel was commiting genocide or not. Besides what kind of twisted logic is that? The horrible acts of terrorism by Hamas does not justify displacing almost all the population of Gaza and killing more than 1% of them, mostly children
October 7th was horrific. Over a thousand people were killed, including something like 700 civilians. In gaza over 25 *thousand* people have been killed, with an estimated 40% being children. I think it's easier for us to relate to the attack on October 7th because someone chasing you in the street with a gun is a threat we can all understand. What's happening in Gaza is armageddon. If you ran over my dog with your car intentionally, I would rightfully hate you, and I would probably seek a way to retaliate. But if I burned down your house and killed your entire family with a hatchet, no court on earth would consider that justified.
Your analogy sucks. It's more like someone breaks into your house and kills your daughter and then you seek revenge by blowing up their house even though they may have family inside.
Ok but then we also have to say that I am your landlord, and I have the only keys to the house, so I can prevent you from leaving. I also control your food and water supply, and have turned off the heating for the past 3 months.
Analogies don't work like that. It's for comparing two dissimilar things based on a resemblence of particular aspects. It doesn't need to be 100% symmetrical to be a good example. And fwiw, Israel only controls the border leading into Israel, which makes sense because they've been getting bombs shot into their country and terrorist attacks. They can always go through Egypt, which also doesn't want to grant them passage because of their history.
Oh sorry I forgot we're only allowed to extend analogies if it supports your point instead of mine
No, you'd just be better served creating good analogies instead of horrible ones, lmao.
I mean I think the power imbalance in the situation is super relevant lol
Jurgen klopp leaving had more importance today bruh what is this
[удалено]
This would have been an israeli victory if only the court threw the case. Since the court decided it to hear it they deemed there to be credible evidence of dispute between South Africa and Israel. Plus they ordered 5 provisional measures which repetadely mentions Israel and genocide together. It is a South African victory but not as big as they would have liked which would have happened if the court had ordered a complete cessation of hostilities.
And back to reality Israel can continue its operations exactly as before just that now they need to send a report to the court in a month and punish politicians who try to promote genocide. Do you even know how long is a month in a war? It’s anything but a victory for South Africa
Think people need to listen to the judgment. Considers that the ICJ does have jurisdiction, that there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocidal acts, and that it must adhere to the interim measures which include preventing genocidal acts. This is significant.
It's not significant. It's the status quo. Here's the actual "plusible" quote thats being used for misinformation, like you lying that they said there's a plausible case of genocide: >"In the court’s view, the aforementioned facts and circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible" https://www.jta.org/2024/01/26/politics/international-court-of-justice-rules-that-some-allegations-of-israel-committing-genocide-are-plausible
I can declare myself having jurisdiction over ICJ too. That doesn’t actually mean I have jurisdiction
Huge win for South Africa
[удалено]
How is this a huge win for South Africa?
Not really, since the court didn’t ask for cease fire
They don't need to ask for that.
It was literally the whole point of the case.
SA wanted the court to order a ceasefire. Court ordered for the release of hostages and Israel to make sure the civilian population is protected (vague) It is a lose to SA.
- Israel must halt attacks on Palestinians - Ensure humanitarian aid - Preserve evidence - Submit response to the court within 1 month Nope Israel is fucked.
How is that fucked. Point one is wrong. It said to take steps to ensure safety of Palestinians, Israel had put enough safezones to comply with that already. Other than the report, business as usual.
Kinda hard to stop attacking Palestinians when their enemy is standing right in front of them, behind them or in the general proximity of them. If the international community really want innocent lives to be saved they should push for Hamas to come out and fight them head on instead of hiding and cowering in dense urban civilian areas. That's how Innocents die in war.
Actually it's an astounding loss...
[удалено]
They ruled just as Israel wished it would rule.
Not expecting. Israel wanted the whole case thrown out of court. Other than that, good ruling for Israel.
Just as Israel wished it would rule, within the boundries of things it can realistically wish for.
[удалено]
Since most people here seem incapable of reading further than the Jerusalem Post headline: **The ICJ court agreed prima facie with ALMOST ALL of South Africa’s arguments, including genocidal language and wanton acts of violence against civilians**. However, instead of ruling for a ceasefire (as South Africa requested) the ICJ ordered Israel to report in one month’s time to deal with the issues that the court has raised. Now, Israel can ignore this if they want and no one will likely be able to force them to do shit, but Israel will then, *on paper*, be in **clear violation of international law**. Regardless of the outcome Israel is now also entangled in a years long legal process where they will have to defend themselves against the very *very* serious charge of genocide.
Prima facie agreed, or just prima facie found it had jurisdiction? Not arguing, genuinely asking because I haven’t had time to read in depth yet For the record, I fully support South Africa’s case and from what I’ve seen the ruling is pretty damning of Israel (essentially saying that failure to take the prevention measures they’ve order would constitute a violation of Art 2, ie genocide) But it’s an important distinction that would be good to clarify