Hi @Evvy_dense , I meant to contrast the biased Israeli “evidence” from conflicted interests with the numerous objective statements from UN organisations and personnel as well as Israeli sources found in the footnotes of the 84 page RSA application. Norman Finkelstein made the point here at around 12 mins in:
cheers
Hi @CJ1
I find all this a detail a bit tricky. Jonathan Cook thinks US bully power will see this off.
https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1745175068047466952
My context-free view
Is there a danger of overthinking the concept.
In genocide you don’t have to kill them all.
If this is decided by micro-arguments you might as well abandon the legal idea of genocide, which was aimed first and foremost at deterring what was obvious - the deliberate elimination of a people.
There were supposed to be no buts. Israel has been openly floating all sorts of ideas, common to which is the absence of the to-be-obliterated Gaza, and of course of Gazans themselves who are meeting whatever fate befalls them in the murderous and reckless shake-up that Israel has actively and deliberately brought about, with western approval.
But politics will likely decide 
Cheers
Hi @Evvy_dense , good Cook analysis, thanks - full article brings us all back to earth:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-west-stand-dock-alongside-israel-genocide-court
Here’s Norman Finkelstein again ( its 3 out of a YT 4 parter) on the Israeli oral part of the ICJ proceedings - his conclusion, Israel may have gotten away with it yet again!
cheers
P.S. a summary of the Israeli oral presentation is here, there are no comments on it :
Hi folks, here is day 2 of Craig Murray’s reporting of the ICJ proceedings - some very interesting comments:
cheers
Thanks @CJ1 I’ve been checking in periodically but not finding this. I heard that BBC and Sky were streaming the proceedings of Israel’s defence BUT NOT Day 1…
Edit: Craig confirms this. I thought it was a quite marvellous piece, especially given the time constraints, and his self-criticism is both harsh and very honest.
If only he could concede to having misjudged the flu d’etat . . .
Hi folks,
I found a couple of sites which covered detail of statements made in Israel showing clear genocidal intent - I posted it above here
cheers
This may not figure in the Genocide case against Israel but is certainly relevant to a crime against humanity - the use of gas to kill indiscriminately and thereby breaching the prohibition on the use of chemical and biological weapons ( but of course no-one mentions this ):
" Maayan also questioned whether Israel was trying to whitewash the operation, as she believes they may have sacrificed the three hostages in order to kill Jarandor.
She said the Israeli army pumped poisonous gas into the tunnel area where her son was being held.
On Facebook, she claimed that her son was “indeed murdered – not by Hamas. Think more like Auschwitz and the showers, but without Nazis."
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-israeli-army-unable-confirm-reason-behind-hostage-deaths
Israel just sinks further below the surface!
cheers
Hi folks, whatever happens on the ground in Palestine following the ICJ’s judgement on the plausible case for genocide by Israel and the issuing of provisional measures, the ICJ has thrown everything they could at Israel:
It is now law that it is plausible that Israel has committed the worst human crime on the books - genocide - and inter alia must immediately stop killing Palestinians.
It will be interesting to see whether BiBiC, Skynews, Mainstream Press actually report this decision and if they do how do they spin it.
cheers
PS apparently TLN commentators and sites like Aljazeerea consider that the provisional measures announced by the UN ICJ do not demand a ceasefire - how does the binding provisional measure from the ICJ on Israel to - not kill any Palestinians or inflict serious bodily or mental harm on any Palestinian in Gaza from this day forth and requiring Israel to make sure its military do not do these acts - not amount to an order of the court to ceasefire?
1:15:00 in - a summary of the provisional measures:
https://www.icj-cij.org/multimedia-live-original
they also go on to demand of Hamas and other Palestinian forces that Israeli hostages are handed back to Israel immediately.
PPS this was reported in Aljazeera:
" ‘If you read the order, by implication a ceasefire must happen’:
Speaking on the steps of the seat of the ICJ, Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s minister of international relations, tells reporters Israel will have to halt fighting in Gaza if it wants to adhere to the orders of the UN’s top court.
“How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire?” Pandor said. “If you read the order, by implication a ceasefire must happen.”
Exactly. I don’t think the court could rule definitively on genocide in a short time period; so this ruling was the most usefult to Gazans that they could make at present.
“It is now law that it is plausible that Israel has committed the worst human crime on the books - genocide - and inter alia must immediately stop killing Palestinians.”
Yes. Reactions are understandable, and a call for ceasefire would have been good though unattainable in ths time frame. But the main point is that the calls for a ceasefire can now be built on this legal footing of the plausibility of genocide. The international community is supposed to stop plausible genocide scenarios too.
Thanks for articulating the key points that are being missed among the emotions.
Cheers
Great points @CJ1
Yves at Naked Capitalism makes the point that calling directly for a ceasefire might have resulted in accusations of bias as the ICJ has no jurisdiction over Hamas, so such an order would have been called one sided. The ICJ has sidestepped this.
As you say they are de facto calling for a ceasefire and have ordered Israel to report back in a month on exactly what measures they have taken in this regard.
Al Jazeera had some really good hot takes here
How does this tally with your “the ICJ has no jurisdiction over Hamas”? All very odd.
As if Israel stops killing for a day, Hamas hands over the hostages and next day Israel resumes implementing its final solution because it can.
Whatever, Israel is not about to stop. This could be the ICJ’s swansong.
no idea. Good question
Hi @AlanG , I think we have to be realistic about all Courts including the ICJ - the judges are political appointees and will be looking for ways to follow their political masters.
I noted that the US citizen, President of the ICJ, Joan Donoghue when reading out the decision of the ICJ very rarely lifted her eyes up from the script - but it was quite telling she did so at one point ( around 1:11:00 in ) having laid down provisional measures telling Israel to stop killing and injuring Palestinians in Gaza , she added we recall that to fall under the scope of section 2 of the convention you have to act with genocidal intent - i.e. to destroy in whole or in part the group under discussion ( the Gazans ) . This seemed to me to be almost like winking at the Israeli team - intent to destroy a substantial part of the group is key, show it doesn’t exist and we can get you off without all the judges looking corrupt …any way this was my mental doodle!
But at the same time the decision had already established what amounted to a prima facie case of genocide with evidence of both specifically prohibited acts combined with genocidal intent seen in express statements from key Israeli politicians and officials as well as implied intent by just looking at the extent and modus operandi of the acts involved. Given that prima facie genocidal intent has been shown then it would not be difficult for RSA to show further acts by Israel were a continuing operation flowing from the genocidal intent already established in the preliminary stage. So my initial thought ( purely from Joan Donoghue’s facial expression! ) that each and every act of Israeli violence against Palestinians in Gaza from today onwards could be discounted as being without genocidal intent by stamping out orders with an instruction saying " be careful not to harm civilians or their property" whilst winking and nudging - probably cannot be claimed because Israel’s intent discovered todate colours all later actions.
So my conclusion is that the preliminary measures against Israel are probably aimed at all military actions which harm the civilian population. This is surely the equivalent of a general ceasefire order.
The segue from Israel to Hamas was a political move, imo, ( along with the ICJ accepting the Israeli account of OCT 7 as to who killed Israelis and what atrocities took place on that date, and ignoring the Palestinian “hostages” taken by Israel for decades ) - and to justify mention of them by saying Hamas should return hostages immediately as they are in breach of humanitarian law in war was also a political move. Some lawyers might say that since the issue is genocide by Israel and since no act by Hamas could justify genocide by Israel, raising actions taken by Hamas cannot be part of the judgement ( obiter dictum) - but since it can’t be appealed, it seems the Rule of Claw applies yet again.
sorry about the jumble of my thoughts here.
cheers
PS I bet Donoghue also tried to get the Yemeni Houthis on the humanitarian law point until someone pointed out they hadn’t actually hurt any humans in their Israeli red sea blockade - I wonder if they will be introducing new laws called containerarian laws!
I can find no reference in the Order to the ICJ having jurisdiction over anyone other than the state parties to the Genocide Convention of whom South Africa and, incredibly, Israel are two.(There is lots of detail about jurisdiction with no mention of Hamas.) However, under ‘conclusion and measures to be adopted’, para 85 states
“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.”
A ‘call for’ is not the same as an order of course but the scumfucks will make hay with this.
Sadly, before the above agonizing, the intro. starts;
"The Court begins by recalling the immediate context in which the present case came before it. On 7 October 2023, Hamas and other armed groups present in the Gaza Strip carried out an attack in Israel, killing more than 1,200 persons, injuring thousands and abducting some 240 people. . . "
Did they really have to adopt a false narrative as their own?
I notice that the Israeli judge, while dissenting from nearly everything of course, voted for the proposition that
“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”
Very odd that Netanyahu felt compelled to approve a known ‘liberal’ judge for the ICJ panel. I guess the Israelis will find themselves to be true advocates of free speech now, at least in one respect. I’d also guess that the Ugandan judge is a rabid Christian Zionist. Bless.
Hi @AlanG , we seem to have picked up the same points.
By the way has the text of the decision been issued yet?
I wonder if the Ugandan judge has been reading up on the history of the real Rwandan genocide per Herman and Peterson where they trace Kagami’s rise from his time in Uganda and conclude the Kagami Tutsi’s were the real genocidairs!
cheers
Some more analysis on the judgement and the Schrödinger ceasefire
You are absolutely right - even the report shows that - para 14 says:
“The scope of the present case submitted to the Court, however, is limited, as South Africa has instituted these proceedings under the Genocide Convention”
cheers
some good points made - I liked b’s statement that the ICJ could not order a ceasefire as you need to be able to tell all sides to cease fire which is not possible with Hamas- although of course telling Hamas to give up the hostages under humanitarian law is a bit weak when the court claims its scope is only the genocide convention!
Having reviewed the text of the decision on these preliminary measures it seems to me that 78 and 79 require consideration of whether the acts of violence which may be committed by Israel from today onwards are done with intent to destroy the Gazans in whole or in a substantial part - here Israel may have some wriggle room if they can keep their mouths shut and show a complete change of modus operandi to show they are using guided weaponry that can distinguish civilians from combatants and that they have flooded Israel with the new deal - no intent to destroy Gazan civilians!
However, paras 80, 81 and 82 do not require evidence of the lack of genocidal intent - Israel is just being told what it has to do with the object of protecting Gazans from further deterioration in their position and ensuring that evidence doesn’t go walk about and asking Israel to report back in a month to show what they’ve done or not done! As the South African Minister said outside the ICJ yesterday - to enable humanitarian aid to get into the whole of Gaza in an effective way the indiscriminate bombing and shelling has to stop which is an effective ceasefire!
cheers
Hi folks, I found the interview by the Grayzone of Craig Mokhiber very encouraging :
cheers
They won’t be able to keep Netanyahu’s mouth shut, as when it shuts he will be out the door, and in…another door.