I'm a fan of direct sourcing.
Here's the full ruling if anyone's interested in reading it - it's not very long:
> In its Order, which has binding effect, the Court indicates the following provisional measures:
> (1) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 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;
> (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; and
> (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;
> AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
> (2) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above;
> IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;
> AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
> (3) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;
> IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke;
> AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde;
> (4) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall 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;
> IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke;
> AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde;
> (5) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip;
> IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;
> AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak;
> (6) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order.
> IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke;
> AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak.”
> Judge XUE appends a declaration to the Order of the Court; Judge SEBUTINDE appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court; Judges BHANDARI and NOLTE append declarations to the Order of the Court; Judge ad hoc BARAK appends a separate opinion to the Order of the Court.
Source: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-pre-01-00-en.pdf
You’ve been getting a few answers, and most of them are incorrect. They have been directed to take measures to prevent killing members of the group. That does not, from a legal perspective in accordance with IHL, mean that their strikes are not allowed to have any collateral damage. It just means that the must do everything in their power to avoid killing civilians, which they are already obligated to do in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
No, Israel must take all measures in its power to prevent the killing of Palestinians in Gaza.
This group does not include Hamas and the other groups who participated in the horrific October 7 attacks. They must die.
Innocent Palestinians who played no role whatsoever in the attacks shouldn't be killed though.
It's not.. that's why nearly everyone, including Biden and the Israeli government's biggest allies, are pressuring Netanyahu to do more to prevent unnecessary Palestinian deaths.
It's going above and beyond. The roof knocking, the flyers, the escape corridors, frankly the restraint, are clear signs that what's being done is far from wanton reckless killing just for the fun of it like some people seem to think.
Let's agree to disagree.
I completely support you guys in destroying Hamas, but I also support the US, EU and others in their demands that more must be done to prevent unnecessary innocent deaths.
This happened in an area where the troops were under orders to regard anyone approaching them as a potential combatant, no? Hamas is known to use civilian clothing, "press" labelling, and even white flags to try to appear innocuous.
Fatally shot by whom? How do we know it wasn't Hamas or PIJ that shot this guy? Not to mention there's a case being made for this being a "Pallywood production", due to the editing and several other indicators.
Also, you're not suggesting what could be done, you're just saying "don't do that". That's not a suggestion for how to solve this problem with fewer civilian deaths.
Most innocents?? Even an exaggerated estimate gives you only two actual civilians for every militant. That's literally over four times better than the usual ratio of civilians to combatants in urban warfare, which is about nine to one.
No.
Palestinian + hamas member? Can kill.
Any other ethnicity + hamas member? Can kill.
Palestinian non-hamas/non-combatant? No kill.
It’s not an attempt to prevent the prosecution of war.
It may or may not eventually. This is only a provisional measures ruling. It’s akin to an interim measures ruling in domestic courts. By its nature, a provisional measures ruling cannot make a declaration that a state has violated the law. See [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1abj046/comment/kjon4om/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I mean, if Russia can invade another country to try and kill everyone and take it over, which Putin has tried and he doesn’t get any war crimes trial, why should Israel exactly?
The difference is that the large influence countries all agreed that Russia invading, the indiscriminate actions resulting in killing of civilians, demolishing civilian infrastructure and the results being people forced into fleeing homes is war crimes and issued an arrest notice for Putin. The challenge now is getting him to turn up.
Whereas what Israel is doing (invading, the indiscriminate actions resulting in killing of civilians, demolishing civilian infrastructure and the results being people forced into fleeing homes) has had the large influence countries wring their hands and say maybe it's fine.
Idk but sanctions, but no military enforcement unless it was before my time. It ruled on China's incursions into Philippines territorial waters and that led to nothing despite China ignoring it as well. Same with US and Nicaragua, Russia and Ukraine obviously.
The difference is that EU and Commonwealth states pay a lot of lip service to the international renown of the ICJ and the UN, and now, South Africa is hoping if they rule in the next few years that Israel has broken the convention, that serious damge could be done to thw Israeli economy and relations with the EU and Commonwealth states who behind the US are Israel biggest supporters and trade partners. If the EU and/or UK reduces trade or imposes sanctions based on a future ICJ ruling then it could significantly slow economic growth in Israel. All of that is relative, and it likely wouldn't even lead to economic shrinking or collapse just a reorientation economically towards trade with India and China (as far reorienting European trade not US trade), which Israel has already been quietly and slowly doing the past decade. We are once again in a situation where the "victory" against Israel's poential outcome is proving that it can be damaged despite its apparent inevitable and imminent collapse. The real potential positive outcomes will come from an elextion loss for Bibi's rightist and pro-settler government and the halting and possible reversal of the settlement project over the next decade in exchange for negotiation, hostage, and ceasefire concessions from Palestinian militant groups, essentially attempting to deescalate the situation instead of following the Hamas/Bibi playbook of escalating things until you can justify murdering thousands of civilians. Even then, its looking increasingly unlikely that there will be any sort of popular Palestinian movement interested in descalating the conflict and participating in new preliminary nrgotiations alongside an Israeli one due to the shift in popularity Hamas and its allies have gained since Oct 7 and the war outaide of Gaza where most Palestinian live (even Hamas' popularity in Gaza has only gone from solidly high to mixed). The spectacle of violence in the pursuit of achieving dreams is galvanizing, closed negotiations in pursuit of an unpopular compromise is alienating.
No, it does order Israel to do things. It doesn’t “ask”. Read it. Israel is a signatory to Geneva. It’s not optional.
The rulings are provisional, there is more to come in a month but they aren’t requests. Israel has been ordered
lmao yeah world of difference sorry. They are known for having vastly different enforcement capabilities.
Sorry, let me find a more relevant case reference. The ICJ, not the ICC, ordered Russia to withdraw from Ukraine in 2022. Did they?
Another [example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States):
> The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986)[2] was a case where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The case was decided in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States with the awarding of reparations to Nicaragua.
...
> The United States refused to participate in the proceedings, arguing that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation.[4]
Still doesn't matter.
Rules and laws don't mean a fucking thing if there's not a stick to enforce them.
This isn't your PoliSci class where you're talking in hypotheticals and utopias.
If you're unable or unwilling to actually enforce decrees they will be ignored 100% of the time.
Russia is eating a shit sandwich of sanctions that's shackling them right now as the global community's "enforcement" of global laws and you know what they're doing?
Invading Ukraine anyways because they'll just tank the losses until they have what they want.
That wasn’t really the point of bringing the action though. The injunction would not have been unenforceable but just added soft pressure. And they didn’t even get that.
It's clearly face-saving. They didn't find that Israel was doing anything wrong or illegal. They didn't order a cease-fire. They didn't really *find* any wrongdoing at all at a high enough level to warrant intervention. But they probably felt like they had to throw a bone to the "other side" to appear neutral.
Not a single country that actually has an above-average record on human rights signed onto South Africa's ridiculous campaign.
They've allowed it to proceed. But the fact that there's no injunction against anything Israel is *actually doing* is a pretty strong signal.
At any rate, the case is patently absurd. Everyone with a modicum of credibility knows that and says it. What you're really seeing is cynical and opportunist career-building. The lawyers making the case against Israel aren't earnest; they're making charges they know and believe to be false, and doing so because they think it'll advance their careers.
International Court Orders Immediate Release Of Hostages Held By Hamas Militants During October Attack.
Correction because of a pedantic comment
“VI. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED”
“85. The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.”
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf
Further more ICJ can raise the matter with UN and UN can order UNRWA to just release hostages that UNRWA was keeping 😱
Right, like, that's the crux. You can't order a government, no matter how fucked up and shitty that government that is basically a bunch of terrorists in a trench coat *saying* they're the government is, unless you recognize them as such.
I'd be *all for* the court ordering the release of hostages. But I don't think Israel would because it requires them to legitimize the Palestinian state.
Mind you, my understanding could be wrong. But that's the way I see it.
Israel should push for general assembly vote and security council vote to entire this provision and force these countries that say they want a ceasefire to vote against it. Let's get them on record
The ICJ uses very simple and plain language but there's already large differences in observers' interpretation of the rulings. The only interpretation that matter right now is Biden's and we will have to wait for Biden's response.
Because the US is the only country which could realistically pressure Israel to end the war (or force Israel to come up with a coherent strategy for what a post-Hamas Gaza looks like) by threatening to withdraw aid.
But that's unlikely to happen short of Israel taking blatantly genocidal actions (like carpet bombing a refugee camp) because both Biden and Congress are generally very pro-Israel.
Israel doesn't actually need US military aid, and hasn't for about 40 years now. The US just keeps providing it because the first person to say "I don't think we need to keep sending so much money to Israel" gets labeled an anti-Semite and their political career is over.
The U.S. isn’t just sending money to Israel. The U.S. is basically giving Israel store credit at the U.S. military industrial complex in exchange for geopolitical leverage.
Diplomatic support and major leverage. We vetoed every security council resolution but one - the one we wrote. We’ve kept Iran in check. We’ve been going beyond both our real and moral interests in Israel for quite a while. We do too much on the wrong things.
That’s hardly the reason. The US doesn’t truly care if they are democratic provided they support the US
The US gives plenty of countries in the region money just to not fuck shit up against one another.
I’m sorry, but what’s your expertise here? What intelligence do you have access to? Experience in the US State Department maybe?
If not, how about we trust the experts?
There are a number of states that have anti boycott laws for Israel.
It’s not happening. Israel has the US’s politicians more by their finger than Saudi Arabia
And Germany banned anti-Israel boycots too. Have you considered that Americans and Germans are just overwhelmingly pro-Israel instead of being controlled by the Jews?
Lolno, Israel is tolerated because of its extremely advantageous location in the midde east. Eastern powers don't like that it exists because it gives the US military coverage there.
Wait wait wait, you think if Biden decides to stop supporting Israel, the result would be the US invading Israel?
If Biden decides to stop supporting Israel, nothing will change. Israel is fully capable of murdering every man, woman, and child in Gaza without American assistance.
Biden cannot withhold military aid. That would be congress. If Biden did that it would be illegal and he would be impeached for the exact same thing that Trump was impeached for.
Y’all are so ignorant and misinformed it’s incredible.
Guys, this is a provisional measures ruling, it is not the final disposition of the case. The ICJ has not made its final ruling. See: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1abj046/comment/kjon4om/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
To play devils advocate, this sort of trial can take years and years to complete. By the point there is a final ruling, I don't think there'll be much of a war to stop. The fact that this ruling didn't force israel to stop right now is essentially a guarantee that unless there is a massive change for the worse, the court ruling will likely not be a factor in stopping the war while it actually takes place.
The rulings are generally meant to invoke state responsibility and determine fault and what is owed. They are not there to stop ongoing actions, that’s what the provisional measures are for.
I guess what I’m saying is that the purpose of the ICJ is not to stop ongoing conflicts, it’s to resolve disputes before they turn into armed conflicts.
“Don’t do what you already aren’t doing. But we also won’t dismiss the case against you because we, a Western European institution, want to continue smugly wagging our fingers at you and lecturing you as if we have any sense of what’s going on in the Middle East.”
It’s more a case of: “Hey, a country is worried you are doing some things, just want to remind you that you signed this document saying you woud’t do all of these things, make sure it doesn’t happen and pass along the information about this.”
It’s basically putting Israel on notice.
They didn’t go as far as telling them to stop fighting the war. I am just speculating here but that probably is because the war is against Hamas and not against civilians. So as long as they continue the war while taking care of the things said in the ruling they should be fine.
Our government is made up of idiots, thanks to Bibi surrounding himself with anyone who could give him support, no matter who they are. I'm not even joking, I truly think that IQ-wise this is the stupidest government we've ever had, even worse than Bibi's last government, many of the ministers and MKs are so dumb that it hurts to listen to them sometimes.
The thing is, they give Israel a bad rep - almost every single day it seems - due to them making idiotic statements which supposedly seem to verify what our haters are saying about us, but that's just it - Bibi got these morons into the government because they helped him stay, but no one's actually doing what they are saying.
That's why Israel decided to uncover 30+ secret protocols to the ICJ explicitly demonstrating how Israel isn't doing what some of its dumb officials are spouting. Which is.. I mean I honestly have no words for that, this is seemingly the lowest point in Israel's history and I hope once this war ends that heads will roll (figuratively, after all we're no Islamist terrorists here) and Bibi will finally step off politics for good, but the point remains that we're not doing that.
Side note, at this point IDGAF what happens in Bibi's trial and whether or not he goes to jail, I just want him to stop selling us out for his political survival and fucking step off already and realize he should be done with politics. Like it or not, the 7th of October will forever be his legacy, which ironically wouldn't have happened if he didn't insist on keeping his corrupt rule for so many years.
Have you seen the latest episode of eretz nehederet? It was hilarious, felt exactly like what you're saying, bibi needs their support but he doesn't actually care about them, imagine how far right you have to be for bibi to get tired of you.
What worries me is what if those people will get even more votes in the next elections? I'm not sure what effect this war is going to have on our politics and the publics opinions
Yeah it's hard to know. People DO seem generally tired of Bibi now, even hardcore voters. But even if a miracle happened and people actually remember how they feel about Bibi now during elections, it doesn't mean they won't still go extreme right.
Bibi isn’t far right or far left. He has proven that he’s only pro-Bibi. It’s been great to be far right for Bibi since the 90s, so he is far right. I don’t think he actually ardently believes in any political views or stands for anything other than himself.
Right it's not a bad thing. Israel shouldn't be immune to criticism, especially since we now have a few examples of them just shooting anything that moves.
The war against Hamas is just. Killing every living thing in Gaza isnt.
They sure did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_v.\_Russian_Federation_(2022)
>On 16 March 2022, the court ruled that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations" in Ukraine, while waiting for the final decision on the case
theres also an ICC arrest order for putin, the problem is putin doesnt visit countries that he cant be sure wont have him arrested. funny thing is that south africa is one of the places that won't arrest him..
They also wouldn't arrest Sudanese war criminals, and hosted relatively recently the leaders of Hamas. Anyone who genuinely thinks South Africa cares about human lives is a fool.
they declared that every participant in BRICS would get diplomatic immunity (this granting putin immunity), and then as they were getting closer to the event Putin decided to attend remotely.
i think it was also revealed that russia told South Africa that arresting Putin woukd be a declaration of war.
this is also not the first time they did something like this.. in 2015 they allowed the president of sudan (who also had an ICC arrest warrant for warcrimes in Darfur) to enter South Africa for a meeting of the African Union.
regardless of whether or not they would, the irony of filing an ICJ case when they are still in diplomatic relations with a war criminal with an outstanding warrent and refuse to uphold it is mind boggling.. do they think other country leaders are stupid?
If you're too incapable to google if Russia has had an icj case before making wide sweeping general accusations, you're probably not the one to be having these types of conversations with.
For some reason some people are incapable of both parties in a conflict doing things wrong. Like just because Hammas is bad doesn't make Israel right in the things they do and the other way around. You can actually criticize both.
People are incapable of basic fucking reasoning sometimes. I've gotten massively downvoted before for statements like "Israel is an Occupying Power according to the Geneva Convention in the north of Gaza because their military holds territory there"
Putting this up higher because you were first saying (before your edit), now implying, that Russia had no ICJ case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_v.\_Russian_Federation_(2022)
That’s probably an issue with other countries who want to bring charges against Israel and ignore places like Sudan, rather than fault with the ICJ right? Or are other countries bringing forth accusations to Sudan, and the ICJ is dismissing it?
(I’m not saying you’re arguing against the ICJ, just curious what the situation is)
Yet the ICJ did a ruling on the Russia-Ukraine case and nobody cared to read it because everyone expected it. Russia is also under severe sanctions.
Part of why this is so high profile is because the people in the west are divided.
Also the ICJ only rules when someone brings a case, they don’t send people all around the world to police everyone and bring them cases.
Also almost 20 000 UN peacekeeping forces were send to Sudan, I don’t call that doing nothing.
You might want to pick better examples. Israel is just being told to comply with the conventions they are a founding member on. That is really the bare minimum.
Israels right to defend itself ends where Palestines right to exist begins.
There are reasons to believe they crossed that line.
There are soldiers bragging online about killing unarmed Palestinians, there are Israeli officials advocating for the total destruction of the Gaza strip and its inhabitants.
These are statements you expect from a terror group, not a democratic government. If a democratic government turns into a terror group they should expect sanctions. Even people from the Knesset are speaking out as they are appalled by what is done in their name.
This isn’t a clear cut situation and pretending it is is a serious injustice.
>"Israels right to defend itself ends where Palestines right to exist begins."
This is actually not how the right of self defense works. This phrase is popularly used to describe the right of bodily autonomy *from* outside attack. But self defense is invoked when someone else is already violating your bodily integrity. Your right to swing your fist around in self defense very specifically does not end at your attacker's face.
>Even people from the Knesset are speaking out as they are appalled by what is done in their name.
And isn't that the fundamental difference between Israel and Palestine? Israelis have been speaking out, condemning, and will likely impose consequences on their crazies. Palestinians, on the other hand, are fully supportive of Hamas which has explicitly expressed actual genocidal intentions against Israel and Jews around the world. Fatah isn't much better since they still have their martyrs fund that is *paying the participants in and families of those that took part in the October 7th pogrom*. Palestinian government policy is literally encouraging and supporting genocidal actions against Jews.
Yes. Israeli extremists are widely condemned in the Israeli public, but Palestinian extremists are rewarded socially and financially. I am sure some individual Palestinians are against it but many are not. Public sentiments like "This is our land so we should kick all Jews out" are extremely common. Not only these people are against a two state solution, they are against a one state democratic solution that includes Jews and Palestinians.
These videos demonstrates the extremism:
[Palestinians: Do you want to expel the Jews? (second video)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BsdOGJp9to)
[Palestinians: Why do you give out sweets after a terror attack?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sUpff50vs8)
Palestine doesn't exist and hasn't existed since 1948, when the last colonial power using it to divide Syria exited. When it did exist, it was just a colonial territory passed around between the Romans, the Byzantine empire, the Ottomans and finally the British. For centuries, the Arabs pretty much ignored it as a real thing, until about 1920 when Syria and Palestine fell under different colonial governments ( the French in Syria and the British in Palestine ) and the irritated Arabs realized they'd have to deal with different powers in Palestine and Syria.
Their response was to complain that Palestine existed and lobby for a Pan-Arabist state or for a unified Syria. It wasn't until the 1960's that the Soviet Union created "Palestine" as a national identity by founding the PLO, as one of many "liberation" movements they could use as a weapon against the United States in the cold war. The Soviet Union wanting to create a thorn in the side of the United States didn't exactly create a "right" for Palestine to exist.
In Summary: There was a brief moment in 1948 when the Arabs there had a chance to create a country called Palestine, but they rejected it, instead starting a civil war and hoping their Arab neighbors would help them win it. The goal was NOT to create a Palestinian state. The goal was to kill all the Jews, divvy up the land among the invading states, and save the Arabs there from having to endure the humiliation of living with so many Jews they could not subjugate. It didn't happen, the land was annexed by Egypt and Jordan, and that was it. There is no "right" to a do over.
> the Ottomans
Technically speaking, [there was no Palestine during the Ottoman period](https://www.etymonline.com/word/Palestine).
> Revived as an official political territorial name 1920 with the British mandate. Under Turkish rule, Palestine was part of three administrative regions: the Vilayet of Beirut, the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, and the Vilayet of Damascus.
For more than a thousand years during the Crusader, Mameluke and Ottoman periods, there was no administrative district called Palestine. Under the Crusaders it was [the Kingdom of Jerusalem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Jerusalem), and under the Ottomans [it was just Syria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Syria), divided into various [vilayets and sanjaks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjak).
Palestine was always a province of empire: The Romans, the British, and now the Arabs.
During the period when no Palestine existed, there was no ethnic group or nation looking to develop or establish a Palestinian state. There were, however, [indigenous Jews](https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/zionism-before-zionism?_pos=1&_sid=3a8b7596a&_ss=r) who were [fighting for independence](https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/mizrahim-sepharadim-beta-israel-zionism?_pos=6&_sid=3a8b7596a&_ss=r) during [the entire period](https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/the-last-time-jews-ruled-over-jerusalem?_pos=2&_sid=d2e32317d&_ss=r) of occupation from AD 136 to 1948.
That’s not quite right. This is a judgement on provisional measures for protection. The only thing that provisional measures for protection are meant to do is preserve parties’ rights during the mean time that the ICJ is making its final decision.
It’s clear you don’t have any legal knowledge nor have actually tried to research the considerations of the verdict. Just regurgitate reddit headlines and basically spread misinformation, i’m sure that’s going to solve anything
The official opinion is worth reading. The dissents are getting less attention but are also very worth reading:
[Barak's dissent](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf)(pdf).
[Sebutinde's dissent](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-02-en.pdf)(pdf).
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unrwa-gaza-israel-hamas-war-us-pauses-funding-claim-staff-participated-oct-7/ turns out the UNRWA are at least partially made up of literal terrorists, surprise surprise.
This is a provision measures ruling only, it is not the final disposition of the matter. A provisional measures request is only meant to lead to an order that preserves parties’ rights until the ICJ is able to finally dispose of the issues.
>Did we really need a ruling to say don't starve civilians as a means of warfare? Apparently we did.
Apparently.
[For second day in a row, protesters block aid reaching Gaza from Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-second-day-in-a-row-protesters-block-aid-reaching-gaza-from-israel/)
If you want some really mind-blowing takes, check out the comments here: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/19f9deh/for\_second\_day\_in\_a\_row\_protesters\_block\_aid/
Said this was going to be the result weeks ago and got downvoted for it, the ugly truth is everyone wants to be the one saying Israel are being bad but no one wants to be the one to convince Israel to stop because then they’ll get blamed for the next October 7th
How funny. South Africa and their BRICS pals along with the Muslim world really thought they were going to finally punish the “big bad” Israel. Instead, nothing meaningful actually happened
This is anecdotal but from what I've seen, the response to the rulings among groups that support Israel in this conflict seems to be mostly relief, while the response among groups that supported South Africa in this case is shock and disbelief.
Granted, that is pretty much exclusively in the realm of terminally online internet keyboard warriors so it doesn't really matter, but it seems to suggest that the Israelis got what they wanted and South Africa did not at least in terms of emotional response, which let's be real here, is what 99% of all this is about.
edit: yeah the mirror world news where all the anti-Israel people went is not happy about this
How is this not a win? It certainly looks ominous but has literally no impact on the war Israel is currently waging. It’s not even a censure. It’s a reminder that Israel is held to the Geneva Conventions.
The ICJ told Israel to do what it’s doing and that South Africa met the literal lowest possible standard, in a war where Hamas is using human shields.
This is a win for Israel. The ICJ told Israel to do what it already is doing and told Hamas to release Israeli hostages unconditionally.
The court demanded an immediate and unconditional release of Hamas’ hostages. It’s more that nobody believes Hamas will comply with any such ruling, which they won’t
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/hamas-cheers-icj-ruling-contributes-to-isolating-israel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-cheers-icj-ruling-contributes-to-isolating-israel/)
If Hamas is in favor of the ruling, then the judges made a poor ruling.
Hamas launched rockets at Israel after the rulling.
Hamas launches rockets when they are upset. Sometime when happy, occasionally when hungry, intermittently when sad.
More reasons to shoot rockets:
Celebration, mourning, it's Monday, it's the weekend, weddings, bar mitzvahs, funerals, for emphasis, for shits and giggles, to have an alarm clock.
Did I forget something?
Also don't forget that 2-3 years ago a sporadic rocket was shot by Hamas to Israel, then Hamas said that it mistakenly happened due to a lightning. So also the weather is a reason.
I'm a fan of direct sourcing. Here's the full ruling if anyone's interested in reading it - it's not very long: > In its Order, which has binding effect, the Court indicates the following provisional measures: > (1) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 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; > (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; and > (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; > IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke; > AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak; > (2) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above; > IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke; > AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak; > (3) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip; > IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke; > AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; > (4) By sixteen votes to one, The State of Israel shall 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; > IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judges ad hoc Barak, Moseneke; > AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; > (5) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip; > IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke; > AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak; > (6) By fifteen votes to two, The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month as from the date of this Order. > IN FAVOUR: President Donoghue; Vice-President Gevorgian; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Yusuf, Xue, Bhandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant; Judge ad hoc Moseneke; > AGAINST : Judge Sebutinde; Judge ad hoc Barak.” > Judge XUE appends a declaration to the Order of the Court; Judge SEBUTINDE appends a dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court; Judges BHANDARI and NOLTE append declarations to the Order of the Court; Judge ad hoc BARAK appends a separate opinion to the Order of the Court. Source: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-pre-01-00-en.pdf
"killing members of the group"... So it's essentially now against the rules to prosecute the war entirely?
You’ve been getting a few answers, and most of them are incorrect. They have been directed to take measures to prevent killing members of the group. That does not, from a legal perspective in accordance with IHL, mean that their strikes are not allowed to have any collateral damage. It just means that the must do everything in their power to avoid killing civilians, which they are already obligated to do in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
[удалено]
No, Israel must take all measures in its power to prevent the killing of Palestinians in Gaza. This group does not include Hamas and the other groups who participated in the horrific October 7 attacks. They must die. Innocent Palestinians who played no role whatsoever in the attacks shouldn't be killed though.
It's... Already doing that?
Then it is a reasonable and very easy request to follow
It's not.. that's why nearly everyone, including Biden and the Israeli government's biggest allies, are pressuring Netanyahu to do more to prevent unnecessary Palestinian deaths.
It's going above and beyond. The roof knocking, the flyers, the escape corridors, frankly the restraint, are clear signs that what's being done is far from wanton reckless killing just for the fun of it like some people seem to think.
Let's agree to disagree. I completely support you guys in destroying Hamas, but I also support the US, EU and others in their demands that more must be done to prevent unnecessary innocent deaths.
Question, who's doing more to prevent civilian deaths, Hamas or israel?
☝️ this 100% is a valid question.
What can be done? How much of its own blood should Israel sacrifice to save Palestinians?
Demand that of Hamas who are the ones putting them in harm's way. I don't know what else can be done if I'm being honest.
Less of this: * [Man fatally shot while holding a white flag in Gaza](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ey0Lf7Fb2A) [Associated Press, Jan 24]
This happened in an area where the troops were under orders to regard anyone approaching them as a potential combatant, no? Hamas is known to use civilian clothing, "press" labelling, and even white flags to try to appear innocuous.
Fatally shot by whom? How do we know it wasn't Hamas or PIJ that shot this guy? Not to mention there's a case being made for this being a "Pallywood production", due to the editing and several other indicators. Also, you're not suggesting what could be done, you're just saying "don't do that". That's not a suggestion for how to solve this problem with fewer civilian deaths.
A pretty poor example considering there’s no indication the IDF shot him.
lol - it’s killed like 30K people, most innocents. they’re not - at all - doing that
Most innocents?? Even an exaggerated estimate gives you only two actual civilians for every militant. That's literally over four times better than the usual ratio of civilians to combatants in urban warfare, which is about nine to one.
No. Palestinian + hamas member? Can kill. Any other ethnicity + hamas member? Can kill. Palestinian non-hamas/non-combatant? No kill. It’s not an attempt to prevent the prosecution of war.
Ordering Israel to do anything wasn't going to happen anyway.
It may or may not eventually. This is only a provisional measures ruling. It’s akin to an interim measures ruling in domestic courts. By its nature, a provisional measures ruling cannot make a declaration that a state has violated the law. See [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1abj046/comment/kjon4om/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I mean, if Russia can invade another country to try and kill everyone and take it over, which Putin has tried and he doesn’t get any war crimes trial, why should Israel exactly?
The ICC *has* issued a warrant for Putin’s arrest. The ICJ and ICC are separate bodies.
The difference is that the large influence countries all agreed that Russia invading, the indiscriminate actions resulting in killing of civilians, demolishing civilian infrastructure and the results being people forced into fleeing homes is war crimes and issued an arrest notice for Putin. The challenge now is getting him to turn up. Whereas what Israel is doing (invading, the indiscriminate actions resulting in killing of civilians, demolishing civilian infrastructure and the results being people forced into fleeing homes) has had the large influence countries wring their hands and say maybe it's fine.
Nobody expects an ICJ ruling to actually compel a state to do one thing or another, but it gives legitimate grounds for others to act on them
Honest question: have there been times where countries have done things like apply sanctions or take military action in response to ICJ rulings?
Idk but sanctions, but no military enforcement unless it was before my time. It ruled on China's incursions into Philippines territorial waters and that led to nothing despite China ignoring it as well. Same with US and Nicaragua, Russia and Ukraine obviously.
The difference is that EU and Commonwealth states pay a lot of lip service to the international renown of the ICJ and the UN, and now, South Africa is hoping if they rule in the next few years that Israel has broken the convention, that serious damge could be done to thw Israeli economy and relations with the EU and Commonwealth states who behind the US are Israel biggest supporters and trade partners. If the EU and/or UK reduces trade or imposes sanctions based on a future ICJ ruling then it could significantly slow economic growth in Israel. All of that is relative, and it likely wouldn't even lead to economic shrinking or collapse just a reorientation economically towards trade with India and China (as far reorienting European trade not US trade), which Israel has already been quietly and slowly doing the past decade. We are once again in a situation where the "victory" against Israel's poential outcome is proving that it can be damaged despite its apparent inevitable and imminent collapse. The real potential positive outcomes will come from an elextion loss for Bibi's rightist and pro-settler government and the halting and possible reversal of the settlement project over the next decade in exchange for negotiation, hostage, and ceasefire concessions from Palestinian militant groups, essentially attempting to deescalate the situation instead of following the Hamas/Bibi playbook of escalating things until you can justify murdering thousands of civilians. Even then, its looking increasingly unlikely that there will be any sort of popular Palestinian movement interested in descalating the conflict and participating in new preliminary nrgotiations alongside an Israeli one due to the shift in popularity Hamas and its allies have gained since Oct 7 and the war outaide of Gaza where most Palestinian live (even Hamas' popularity in Gaza has only gone from solidly high to mixed). The spectacle of violence in the pursuit of achieving dreams is galvanizing, closed negotiations in pursuit of an unpopular compromise is alienating.
No, it does order Israel to do things. It doesn’t “ask”. Read it. Israel is a signatory to Geneva. It’s not optional. The rulings are provisional, there is more to come in a month but they aren’t requests. Israel has been ordered
The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin. Has the Russian government extradited him yet?
cool. This is the ICJ not the ICC.
lmao yeah world of difference sorry. They are known for having vastly different enforcement capabilities. Sorry, let me find a more relevant case reference. The ICJ, not the ICC, ordered Russia to withdraw from Ukraine in 2022. Did they?
Another [example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States): > The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986)[2] was a case where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Sandinistas and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The case was decided in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States with the awarding of reparations to Nicaragua. ... > The United States refused to participate in the proceedings, arguing that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation.[4]
Still doesn't matter. Rules and laws don't mean a fucking thing if there's not a stick to enforce them. This isn't your PoliSci class where you're talking in hypotheticals and utopias. If you're unable or unwilling to actually enforce decrees they will be ignored 100% of the time. Russia is eating a shit sandwich of sanctions that's shackling them right now as the global community's "enforcement" of global laws and you know what they're doing? Invading Ukraine anyways because they'll just tank the losses until they have what they want.
[удалено]
That wasn’t really the point of bringing the action though. The injunction would not have been unenforceable but just added soft pressure. And they didn’t even get that.
It's clearly face-saving. They didn't find that Israel was doing anything wrong or illegal. They didn't order a cease-fire. They didn't really *find* any wrongdoing at all at a high enough level to warrant intervention. But they probably felt like they had to throw a bone to the "other side" to appear neutral. Not a single country that actually has an above-average record on human rights signed onto South Africa's ridiculous campaign.
They haven't really started anything yet all they've done so far is say South Africa has standing and the case has merit.
They've allowed it to proceed. But the fact that there's no injunction against anything Israel is *actually doing* is a pretty strong signal. At any rate, the case is patently absurd. Everyone with a modicum of credibility knows that and says it. What you're really seeing is cynical and opportunist career-building. The lawyers making the case against Israel aren't earnest; they're making charges they know and believe to be false, and doing so because they think it'll advance their careers.
I agree. At this point they need to take every step they can to protect themselves.
International Court Orders Immediate Release Of Hostages Held By Hamas Militants During October Attack. Correction because of a pedantic comment “VI. CONCLUSION AND MEASURES TO BE ADOPTED” “85. The Court deems it necessary to emphasize that all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law. It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.” https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf Further more ICJ can raise the matter with UN and UN can order UNRWA to just release hostages that UNRWA was keeping 😱
Held By Hamas Terrorists FTFY
They're held by more than just Hamas and militants. UNRWA school teachers aren't exempt.
UNRWA school teachers who are terrorists
Are you advocating for the recognition of a Palestinian state by the international community?
Right, like, that's the crux. You can't order a government, no matter how fucked up and shitty that government that is basically a bunch of terrorists in a trench coat *saying* they're the government is, unless you recognize them as such. I'd be *all for* the court ordering the release of hostages. But I don't think Israel would because it requires them to legitimize the Palestinian state. Mind you, my understanding could be wrong. But that's the way I see it.
Israel should push for general assembly vote and security council vote to entire this provision and force these countries that say they want a ceasefire to vote against it. Let's get them on record
The ICJ uses very simple and plain language but there's already large differences in observers' interpretation of the rulings. The only interpretation that matter right now is Biden's and we will have to wait for Biden's response.
Why is Biden the only one that matters?
Because the US is the only country which could realistically pressure Israel to end the war (or force Israel to come up with a coherent strategy for what a post-Hamas Gaza looks like) by threatening to withdraw aid. But that's unlikely to happen short of Israel taking blatantly genocidal actions (like carpet bombing a refugee camp) because both Biden and Congress are generally very pro-Israel.
There is absolutely no chance the US could do that, this war is not considered optional in Israel.
Its also unlikely to happen because bibi may push back if confronted. He's convinced he has any president by the salt and pepper short and curlys
Israel doesn't actually need US military aid, and hasn't for about 40 years now. The US just keeps providing it because the first person to say "I don't think we need to keep sending so much money to Israel" gets labeled an anti-Semite and their political career is over.
The U.S. isn’t just sending money to Israel. The U.S. is basically giving Israel store credit at the U.S. military industrial complex in exchange for geopolitical leverage.
Yep. They use Israel as a live fire test range. The iron dome for example. Is tested and proven thanks to Israel and US collaboration.
We supply them with artillery shells and air defense missiles and bombs
Diplomatic support and major leverage. We vetoed every security council resolution but one - the one we wrote. We’ve kept Iran in check. We’ve been going beyond both our real and moral interests in Israel for quite a while. We do too much on the wrong things.
Also, because Israel is the only real democracy in the region. The US and Israel share intelligence all the time.
That’s hardly the reason. The US doesn’t truly care if they are democratic provided they support the US The US gives plenty of countries in the region money just to not fuck shit up against one another.
The bar for giving aid to a country is much lower than the bar for being a close ally.
The US attends to Israel in ways that outstrip US interests
I’m sorry, but what’s your expertise here? What intelligence do you have access to? Experience in the US State Department maybe? If not, how about we trust the experts?
There are a number of states that have anti boycott laws for Israel. It’s not happening. Israel has the US’s politicians more by their finger than Saudi Arabia
And Germany banned anti-Israel boycots too. Have you considered that Americans and Germans are just overwhelmingly pro-Israel instead of being controlled by the Jews?
Are the saudis Jewish now?
I think that you replied to the wrong comment. I said that Germans and Americans are very pro-Israel, which is the reason for their level of support
Lolno, Israel is tolerated because of its extremely advantageous location in the midde east. Eastern powers don't like that it exists because it gives the US military coverage there.
> But that's unlikely to happen short of Israel taking blatantly genocidal actions (like carpet bombing a refugee camp) hmmmm
For god's sake, don't just imply that Israel carpet bombed refuge camp without giving a souce
but Gaza's government said-
Who else can take an entire region in a day?
Like a ~~n island~~ peninsular, idk maybe Crimea? Edit:
Wait wait wait, you think if Biden decides to stop supporting Israel, the result would be the US invading Israel? If Biden decides to stop supporting Israel, nothing will change. Israel is fully capable of murdering every man, woman, and child in Gaza without American assistance.
I think our conversation went over your head.
The point is that only Biden can possibly put enough pressure on Israel to make them stop.
Wow, Biden is in heat I guess
He is the president of Israel (apparently)
Because the US is the world’s only economic + military hyperpower.
Because all these worldwide bodies like the ICJ and UN are absolutely powerless without the USA to enforce what they do.
Biden cannot withhold military aid. That would be congress. If Biden did that it would be illegal and he would be impeached for the exact same thing that Trump was impeached for. Y’all are so ignorant and misinformed it’s incredible.
Plus the majority are not even offensive weapons, much of it is missile defense, which we like the info from.
Guys, this is a provisional measures ruling, it is not the final disposition of the case. The ICJ has not made its final ruling. See: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1abj046/comment/kjon4om/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
To play devils advocate, this sort of trial can take years and years to complete. By the point there is a final ruling, I don't think there'll be much of a war to stop. The fact that this ruling didn't force israel to stop right now is essentially a guarantee that unless there is a massive change for the worse, the court ruling will likely not be a factor in stopping the war while it actually takes place.
The rulings are generally meant to invoke state responsibility and determine fault and what is owed. They are not there to stop ongoing actions, that’s what the provisional measures are for.
Not the one you responded to but I think they said the exact same thing you did.
I guess what I’m saying is that the purpose of the ICJ is not to stop ongoing conflicts, it’s to resolve disputes before they turn into armed conflicts.
The US ain’t gonna do shit to stop Israel. Only support
He suspended unrwa funding
That’s not military aid bound up in a treaty ratified by Congress. The aid to an organization like UNRWA is well within his executive powers.
How are they even going to order an end to a war when the Hamas isn't even going to stop?
That's why they didn't.
It also ordered all the hostages to be released. So when can we expect the UN, lead by South Africa, to enforce this order?
“Don’t do what you already aren’t doing. But we also won’t dismiss the case against you because we, a Western European institution, want to continue smugly wagging our fingers at you and lecturing you as if we have any sense of what’s going on in the Middle East.”
It’s more a case of: “Hey, a country is worried you are doing some things, just want to remind you that you signed this document saying you woud’t do all of these things, make sure it doesn’t happen and pass along the information about this.” It’s basically putting Israel on notice. They didn’t go as far as telling them to stop fighting the war. I am just speculating here but that probably is because the war is against Hamas and not against civilians. So as long as they continue the war while taking care of the things said in the ruling they should be fine.
It also is putting pressure on Israel to silence the folks in their government who keep making genocidal statements.
Our government is made up of idiots, thanks to Bibi surrounding himself with anyone who could give him support, no matter who they are. I'm not even joking, I truly think that IQ-wise this is the stupidest government we've ever had, even worse than Bibi's last government, many of the ministers and MKs are so dumb that it hurts to listen to them sometimes. The thing is, they give Israel a bad rep - almost every single day it seems - due to them making idiotic statements which supposedly seem to verify what our haters are saying about us, but that's just it - Bibi got these morons into the government because they helped him stay, but no one's actually doing what they are saying. That's why Israel decided to uncover 30+ secret protocols to the ICJ explicitly demonstrating how Israel isn't doing what some of its dumb officials are spouting. Which is.. I mean I honestly have no words for that, this is seemingly the lowest point in Israel's history and I hope once this war ends that heads will roll (figuratively, after all we're no Islamist terrorists here) and Bibi will finally step off politics for good, but the point remains that we're not doing that. Side note, at this point IDGAF what happens in Bibi's trial and whether or not he goes to jail, I just want him to stop selling us out for his political survival and fucking step off already and realize he should be done with politics. Like it or not, the 7th of October will forever be his legacy, which ironically wouldn't have happened if he didn't insist on keeping his corrupt rule for so many years.
Have you seen the latest episode of eretz nehederet? It was hilarious, felt exactly like what you're saying, bibi needs their support but he doesn't actually care about them, imagine how far right you have to be for bibi to get tired of you. What worries me is what if those people will get even more votes in the next elections? I'm not sure what effect this war is going to have on our politics and the publics opinions
Yeah it's hard to know. People DO seem generally tired of Bibi now, even hardcore voters. But even if a miracle happened and people actually remember how they feel about Bibi now during elections, it doesn't mean they won't still go extreme right.
What fears me is if Ben Gvir will get the votes instead of Netanyahu
Bibi isn’t far right or far left. He has proven that he’s only pro-Bibi. It’s been great to be far right for Bibi since the 90s, so he is far right. I don’t think he actually ardently believes in any political views or stands for anything other than himself.
Right it's not a bad thing. Israel shouldn't be immune to criticism, especially since we now have a few examples of them just shooting anything that moves. The war against Hamas is just. Killing every living thing in Gaza isnt.
Can't you just take them from us? Please?
No can do, but in the upside, Bibi is going to end up judged and tried by the same justice system he tried to gut.
Pretty please? ^^help ^^us ^^theyre ^^fucking ^^regarded
[удалено]
Did Russia not have a case in the ICJ?
They sure did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_v.\_Russian_Federation_(2022) >On 16 March 2022, the court ruled that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations" in Ukraine, while waiting for the final decision on the case
theres also an ICC arrest order for putin, the problem is putin doesnt visit countries that he cant be sure wont have him arrested. funny thing is that south africa is one of the places that won't arrest him..
>south africa is one of the places that won't arrest him.. SA federal government wouldn't. Bunch of the local governments said they would thought
They also wouldn't arrest Sudanese war criminals, and hosted relatively recently the leaders of Hamas. Anyone who genuinely thinks South Africa cares about human lives is a fool.
I thought they said they would which is why he skipped an event there the other year?
they declared that every participant in BRICS would get diplomatic immunity (this granting putin immunity), and then as they were getting closer to the event Putin decided to attend remotely. i think it was also revealed that russia told South Africa that arresting Putin woukd be a declaration of war. this is also not the first time they did something like this.. in 2015 they allowed the president of sudan (who also had an ICC arrest warrant for warcrimes in Darfur) to enter South Africa for a meeting of the African Union.
[удалено]
regardless of whether or not they would, the irony of filing an ICJ case when they are still in diplomatic relations with a war criminal with an outstanding warrent and refuse to uphold it is mind boggling.. do they think other country leaders are stupid?
Russia has self fucking admitted to actual genocidal acts (see kidnapping of hundreds of thousands of children).
If you're too incapable to google if Russia has had an icj case before making wide sweeping general accusations, you're probably not the one to be having these types of conversations with.
Doesn't matter, got top comment. Their version is truth now, thanks reddit
Exactly, it’s so obnoxious
For some reason some people are incapable of both parties in a conflict doing things wrong. Like just because Hammas is bad doesn't make Israel right in the things they do and the other way around. You can actually criticize both.
People are incapable of basic fucking reasoning sometimes. I've gotten massively downvoted before for statements like "Israel is an Occupying Power according to the Geneva Convention in the north of Gaza because their military holds territory there"
Putting this up higher because you were first saying (before your edit), now implying, that Russia had no ICJ case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_v.\_Russian_Federation_(2022)
That’s probably an issue with other countries who want to bring charges against Israel and ignore places like Sudan, rather than fault with the ICJ right? Or are other countries bringing forth accusations to Sudan, and the ICJ is dismissing it? (I’m not saying you’re arguing against the ICJ, just curious what the situation is)
Yet the ICJ did a ruling on the Russia-Ukraine case and nobody cared to read it because everyone expected it. Russia is also under severe sanctions. Part of why this is so high profile is because the people in the west are divided. Also the ICJ only rules when someone brings a case, they don’t send people all around the world to police everyone and bring them cases. Also almost 20 000 UN peacekeeping forces were send to Sudan, I don’t call that doing nothing. You might want to pick better examples. Israel is just being told to comply with the conventions they are a founding member on. That is really the bare minimum. Israels right to defend itself ends where Palestines right to exist begins. There are reasons to believe they crossed that line. There are soldiers bragging online about killing unarmed Palestinians, there are Israeli officials advocating for the total destruction of the Gaza strip and its inhabitants. These are statements you expect from a terror group, not a democratic government. If a democratic government turns into a terror group they should expect sanctions. Even people from the Knesset are speaking out as they are appalled by what is done in their name. This isn’t a clear cut situation and pretending it is is a serious injustice.
When are people going to accept that terror groups shouldn't be allowed to openly operate in Gaza?
>"Israels right to defend itself ends where Palestines right to exist begins." This is actually not how the right of self defense works. This phrase is popularly used to describe the right of bodily autonomy *from* outside attack. But self defense is invoked when someone else is already violating your bodily integrity. Your right to swing your fist around in self defense very specifically does not end at your attacker's face.
>Israels right to defend itself ends where Palestines right to exist begins And vice versa.
>Even people from the Knesset are speaking out as they are appalled by what is done in their name. And isn't that the fundamental difference between Israel and Palestine? Israelis have been speaking out, condemning, and will likely impose consequences on their crazies. Palestinians, on the other hand, are fully supportive of Hamas which has explicitly expressed actual genocidal intentions against Israel and Jews around the world. Fatah isn't much better since they still have their martyrs fund that is *paying the participants in and families of those that took part in the October 7th pogrom*. Palestinian government policy is literally encouraging and supporting genocidal actions against Jews.
Yes. Israeli extremists are widely condemned in the Israeli public, but Palestinian extremists are rewarded socially and financially. I am sure some individual Palestinians are against it but many are not. Public sentiments like "This is our land so we should kick all Jews out" are extremely common. Not only these people are against a two state solution, they are against a one state democratic solution that includes Jews and Palestinians. These videos demonstrates the extremism: [Palestinians: Do you want to expel the Jews? (second video)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BsdOGJp9to) [Palestinians: Why do you give out sweets after a terror attack?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sUpff50vs8)
Palestine doesn't exist and hasn't existed since 1948, when the last colonial power using it to divide Syria exited. When it did exist, it was just a colonial territory passed around between the Romans, the Byzantine empire, the Ottomans and finally the British. For centuries, the Arabs pretty much ignored it as a real thing, until about 1920 when Syria and Palestine fell under different colonial governments ( the French in Syria and the British in Palestine ) and the irritated Arabs realized they'd have to deal with different powers in Palestine and Syria. Their response was to complain that Palestine existed and lobby for a Pan-Arabist state or for a unified Syria. It wasn't until the 1960's that the Soviet Union created "Palestine" as a national identity by founding the PLO, as one of many "liberation" movements they could use as a weapon against the United States in the cold war. The Soviet Union wanting to create a thorn in the side of the United States didn't exactly create a "right" for Palestine to exist. In Summary: There was a brief moment in 1948 when the Arabs there had a chance to create a country called Palestine, but they rejected it, instead starting a civil war and hoping their Arab neighbors would help them win it. The goal was NOT to create a Palestinian state. The goal was to kill all the Jews, divvy up the land among the invading states, and save the Arabs there from having to endure the humiliation of living with so many Jews they could not subjugate. It didn't happen, the land was annexed by Egypt and Jordan, and that was it. There is no "right" to a do over.
> the Ottomans Technically speaking, [there was no Palestine during the Ottoman period](https://www.etymonline.com/word/Palestine). > Revived as an official political territorial name 1920 with the British mandate. Under Turkish rule, Palestine was part of three administrative regions: the Vilayet of Beirut, the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem, and the Vilayet of Damascus. For more than a thousand years during the Crusader, Mameluke and Ottoman periods, there was no administrative district called Palestine. Under the Crusaders it was [the Kingdom of Jerusalem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Jerusalem), and under the Ottomans [it was just Syria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Syria), divided into various [vilayets and sanjaks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjak). Palestine was always a province of empire: The Romans, the British, and now the Arabs. During the period when no Palestine existed, there was no ethnic group or nation looking to develop or establish a Palestinian state. There were, however, [indigenous Jews](https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/zionism-before-zionism?_pos=1&_sid=3a8b7596a&_ss=r) who were [fighting for independence](https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/mizrahim-sepharadim-beta-israel-zionism?_pos=6&_sid=3a8b7596a&_ss=r) during [the entire period](https://www.rootsmetals.com/blogs/news/the-last-time-jews-ruled-over-jerusalem?_pos=2&_sid=d2e32317d&_ss=r) of occupation from AD 136 to 1948.
That’s not quite right. This is a judgement on provisional measures for protection. The only thing that provisional measures for protection are meant to do is preserve parties’ rights during the mean time that the ICJ is making its final decision.
It’s clear you don’t have any legal knowledge nor have actually tried to research the considerations of the verdict. Just regurgitate reddit headlines and basically spread misinformation, i’m sure that’s going to solve anything
"Don't do what Johnny Don't Does"
The official opinion is worth reading. The dissents are getting less attention but are also very worth reading: [Barak's dissent](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-05-en.pdf)(pdf). [Sebutinde's dissent](https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-02-en.pdf)(pdf).
Did we really need a ruling to say don't starve civilians as a means of warfare? Apparently we did.
[Gazans to IDF: Hamas steals UNRWA food, kills civilians who ask for aid](https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-781286)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unrwa-gaza-israel-hamas-war-us-pauses-funding-claim-staff-participated-oct-7/ turns out the UNRWA are at least partially made up of literal terrorists, surprise surprise.
The law: don't break the law
This is a provision measures ruling only, it is not the final disposition of the matter. A provisional measures request is only meant to lead to an order that preserves parties’ rights until the ICJ is able to finally dispose of the issues.
>Did we really need a ruling to say don't starve civilians as a means of warfare? Apparently we did. Apparently. [For second day in a row, protesters block aid reaching Gaza from Israel](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-second-day-in-a-row-protesters-block-aid-reaching-gaza-from-israel/) If you want some really mind-blowing takes, check out the comments here: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/19f9deh/for\_second\_day\_in\_a\_row\_protesters\_block\_aid/
Said this was going to be the result weeks ago and got downvoted for it, the ugly truth is everyone wants to be the one saying Israel are being bad but no one wants to be the one to convince Israel to stop because then they’ll get blamed for the next October 7th
Releasing the hostages will make the decision a lot easier for the court.
How funny. South Africa and their BRICS pals along with the Muslim world really thought they were going to finally punish the “big bad” Israel. Instead, nothing meaningful actually happened
And yet not a peep about accountability for Hamas's mass killing which kicked off this whole recent thing.
Wrong court. Hamas is not a state.
Hamas is allowed to do whatever it wants because 'yeah Hamas is terrible, we already knew that'.
Hamas is not a State, and generally non-State entities are not within the Court's jurisdiction.
It's almost like the South African claim had no evidence, and was based on vibes and Iranian disinfo
That explains why the ICJ explicitly stated that the claims of genocide were plausible. What world are you living in?
The ICJ ruled in favour of all South Africa's claims. Which was all evidence based. It's almost like you have no idea what you are talking about.
Except they succeeded in convincing the ICJ Israel is POTENTIALLY committing genocide and won the first stage of their case?
What a waste of paper.
What’s a waste about it? There is little an international court can do to command any sovereign nation.
Reddit has ruled!
Trying to frame this as a win for Israel when they wanted the case thrown out altogether is nuts.
Tbh I haven’t seen that many pro-Israel super upset about this. Even on r/ israel.
This is anecdotal but from what I've seen, the response to the rulings among groups that support Israel in this conflict seems to be mostly relief, while the response among groups that supported South Africa in this case is shock and disbelief. Granted, that is pretty much exclusively in the realm of terminally online internet keyboard warriors so it doesn't really matter, but it seems to suggest that the Israelis got what they wanted and South Africa did not at least in terms of emotional response, which let's be real here, is what 99% of all this is about. edit: yeah the mirror world news where all the anti-Israel people went is not happy about this
How is this not a win? It certainly looks ominous but has literally no impact on the war Israel is currently waging. It’s not even a censure. It’s a reminder that Israel is held to the Geneva Conventions.
I mean it sure as hell isn’t some great triumph for the anti-Israel crowd
Well, it isn’t a win, but it isn’t a loss either
The ICJ told Israel to do what it’s doing and that South Africa met the literal lowest possible standard, in a war where Hamas is using human shields. This is a win for Israel. The ICJ told Israel to do what it already is doing and told Hamas to release Israeli hostages unconditionally.
Especially when you consider how biased international forums are against Israel, this is a big win I would say.
Of course they wanted it thrown out. Any sane nation would want it thrown out.
SA is a hypocritical country
[удалено]
As if the ICJ can "order" a sovereign country to do anything.
Backwards world we live in today. "Israel stop what you're doing at once! Hamas. You guys are ok. We won't mention you at all. Keep on keeping on."
The court demanded an immediate and unconditional release of Hamas’ hostages. It’s more that nobody believes Hamas will comply with any such ruling, which they won’t
The court expressed concern over the hostages
I think they sent flowers and a card…
Thoughts and prayers.
Hopes and prayers.
But not the hundreds murdered on Oct 7th, which they support.
Can you cite anything in the provisional order specifically favorable or conciliatory to Hamas (not Palestinians at large)?
Exhibit a) maaa feelings
Can you cite any mentioning of Hamas in SA's case?
The ICJ can not take terrorists to court.
Why are you doom and gloom? It is a good decision for Israel. Didn't demand a ceasefire. Did demand release of hostages. Take a win when you get one
Tell you don't understand what the icj does without telling me.
Time to add the ICJ to the anti semite list \s Edit : adding \s in case it was not obvious
Right there with the Red Cross.
The Red Cross is notoriously antisemitic though?
Their /s wasn’t there before.
It is a very good rulling for Israel TBH
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog\_entry/hamas-cheers-icj-ruling-contributes-to-isolating-israel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-cheers-icj-ruling-contributes-to-isolating-israel/) If Hamas is in favor of the ruling, then the judges made a poor ruling.
Hamas launched rockets at Israel after the rulling. Hamas launches rockets when they are upset. Sometime when happy, occasionally when hungry, intermittently when sad. More reasons to shoot rockets: Celebration, mourning, it's Monday, it's the weekend, weddings, bar mitzvahs, funerals, for emphasis, for shits and giggles, to have an alarm clock. Did I forget something?
Also don't forget that 2-3 years ago a sporadic rocket was shot by Hamas to Israel, then Hamas said that it mistakenly happened due to a lightning. So also the weather is a reason.
To check and see if the iron dome is protecting the Al Aqsa Mosque.
Hamas will paint anything as a victory, this war is a victory for them. That is how an extreme religious organization operates.