[late]

In discussions with you, I find myself arguing against your bad-faith tactics more than any actual information or ideas that you might have brought to the thread.

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters."

[wat0n]

It's hilarious to see that for the left, "integrity" means ignoring the evidence you don't like and making inane, irrelevant talking points.

[Saeko]

My analysis of the ICJ interim ruling:

1. The court did not rule whether or not Israel is guilty of genocide. That will take years. It did, however, rule that there is sufficient evidence for the case against Israel to be plausible. This will have some major consequences. Firstly, it repudiates those western leaders, the Biden administration in particular, who claimed that there was no basis for the accusations of genocide in Gaza. It could also make it more difficult for Israel to acquire weapons from its allies because the ruling could expose politicians in those countries to domestic lawsuits.

2. The ruling rejected Israel's arguments about self-defense. (This is very important. "Muh HoOmAn ShIelDs!" and "THeY sTarTeD iT!" are not a defense against charges of genocide)

3. The ruling rejected the sufficiency of Israel's measures to minimize harm to civilians and to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.

4. The court did not call for an immediate ceasefire. However, (2) and (3) above mean that the way that Israel is currently conducting its war against Hamas must fundamentally change. If Israel does not produce evidence that it is doing everything possible to minimize loss of civilian life and to allow for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, then, as I understand it, the court can compel a ceasefire.

5. (4) puts Israel in a double-bind. If they significantly scale back their military operations in Gaza, then it will be a tacit admission of genocide. If they do not do so, then they risk having the ICJ issuing an order for a ceasefire, and, further down the line, will have a very hard time arguing that their actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide.

6. Ben Gvir was told to STFU. (I think everyone can be happy about that)

7. Overall, the ruling was a major PR disaster for Israel.

8. The interim measures have some chance of actually preserving Palestinian life.

9. Hamas was ordered to release all hostages unconditionally. Since Hamas has stated that they will release their hostages if and only if Israel releases all Palestinian prisoners in the West Bank (which they most likely will never agree to) the day before the ruling, I think they are signalling that they will not be releasing any hostages unconditionally. Additionally, if Hamas does not release the hostages, it will undermine the credibility of their claims that they are willing to comply with the rulings of the ICJ.

10. Ultimately, if the interim measures are effective in preventing the genocide of Palestinians, this is also a win for Israel in the long run. They may not understand this now, but my hope is that they will one day.

[wat0n]

My analysis of the ICJ interim ruling:

1. The court did not rule whether or not Israel is guilty of genocide. That will take years. It did, however, rule that there is sufficient evidence for the case against Israel to be plausible. This will have some major consequences. Firstly, it repudiates those western leaders, the Biden administration in particular, who claimed that there was no basis for the accusations of genocide in Gaza. It could also make it more difficult for Israel to acquire weapons from its allies because the ruling could expose politicians in those countries to domestic lawsuits.

This is doubtful given the ICJ did not order Israel to stop the military operations.

The bar for plausibility is low and any war that affects a large number of civilians - like one featuring urban battles - can be said to be "plausibly" genocide. I doubt it will damage Israel's PR if it's cleared of all charges.

2. The ruling rejected Israel's arguments about self-defense. (This is very important. "Muh HoOmAn ShIelDs!" and "THeY sTarTeD iT!" are not a defense against charges of genocide)

It did not address those at all.

3. The ruling rejected the sufficiency of Israel's measures to minimize harm to civilians and to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza.

It didn't quite address this either. It did not say if Israel has done enough on this matter and it is also not the topic of the trial.

4. The court did not call for an immediate ceasefire. However, (2) and (3) above mean that the way that Israel is currently conducting its war against Hamas must fundamentally change. If Israel does not produce evidence that it is doing everything possible to minimize loss of civilian life and to allow for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, then, as I understand it, the court can compel a ceasefire.

5. (4) puts Israel in a double-bind. If they significantly scale back their military operations in Gaza, then it will be a tacit admission of genocide. If they do not do so, then they risk having the ICJ issuing an order for a ceasefire, and, further down the line, will have a very hard time arguing that their actions in Gaza do not constitute genocide.

The order did not order Israel to scale operations back either. What it did order it to do is to send more humanitarian aid, punish people like Ben Gvir and more generally comply with the Convention.

6. Ben Gvir was told to STFU. (I think everyone can be happy about that)

Yes!

7. Overall, the ruling was a major PR disaster for Israel.

How so? Since the ICJ didn't order Israel to stop military operations, if anything, this is a defeat for South Africa. It did not get what it wanted most, the star provisional measure.

The ICJ is also using a much lower standard to determine plausibility than the one it will use to actually rule on the merits.

It will be worse for South Africa's case if the ICJ, a month or two from now, says Israel is in compliance with its order.

8. The interim measures have some chance of actually preserving Palestinian life.

Maybe, it will depend on the situation on the ground. For instance, if Israel sends more aid by ground yet it is appropriated by Hamas it is unlikely the civilian population will benefit. If it's airdropped, I think it would likely work better (and would allow Israel to keep the border closed).

Also, the interim measures ordered are surprisingly... Well, kind of generic. I think everyone understands that, when civilians are involved, there should be an effort by belligerents to give them aid, or that incitement should be curbed, or that they should not destroy a population. Yet I would have expected the ICJ to order Israel to prepare for the return of the population of northern Gaza and Gaza City in particular. It would make sense for Israel to do it, both politically and militarily, and it is also the right thing to do.

9. Hamas was ordered to release all hostages unconditionally. Since Hamas has stated that they will release their hostages if and only if Israel releases all Palestinian prisoners in the West Bank (which they most likely will never agree to) the day before the ruling, I think they are signalling that they will not be releasing any hostages unconditionally. Additionally, if Hamas does not release the hostages, it will undermine the credibility of their claims that they are willing to comply with the rulings of the ICJ.

You know what's most notable about this? Israel did not request anything to this effect, since it was responding to the South African request. The ICJ, on its own, decided to talk about the hostages.

10. Ultimately, if the interim measures are effective in preventing the genocide of Palestinians, this is also a win for Israel in the long run. They may not understand this now, but my hope is that they will one day.

You mean the genocide that isn't happening?

[Saeko]

This is doubtful given the ICJ did not order Israel to stop the military operations.

The bar for plausibility is low and any war that affects a large number of civilians - like one featuring urban battles - can be said to be "plausibly" genocide. I doubt it will damage Israel's PR if it's cleared of all charges.

Firstly, there are a whole number of reasons why the court would not order a ceasefire at this time. The most plausible explanation, in my opinion, is the carrot and the stick. The carrot for Israel being that they can continue to fight Hamas provided that they use highly targeted strikes only. The stick being a ceasefire order if nothing changes.

If Israel complies with the court's demands at this juncture, it will make it much harder for them to renege on their obligations to the court if they are later found guilty.

It did not address those at all.



It didn't quite address this either. It did not say if Israel has done enough on this matter and it is also not the topic of the trial.

In the hearing, there was a whole lot of argumentation from the Israeli side that their actions are justified because they are necessary for their self-defense, and that, therefore, SA has no standing. Since the court ruled otherwise, we can conclude that those arguments have been rejected.

The order did not order Israel to scale operations back either. What it did order it to do is to send more humanitarian aid, punish people like Ben Gvir and more generally comply with the Convention.

It did not do so explicitly, however, it will be very difficult for Israel to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza in any real sense if its off the charts bombing campaign continues.

How so? Since the ICJ didn't order Israel to stop military operations, if anything, this is a defeat for South Africa. It did not get what it wanted most, the star provisional measure.

If it saves Palestinian lives, it's a dub for SA. The reason why this is a PR disaster for Israel should be obvious.

The ICJ is also using a much lower standard to determine plausibility than the one it will use to actually rule on the merits.

Obviously. That's how these things work.

It will be worse for South Africa's case if the ICJ, a month or two from now, says Israel is in compliance with its order.

If.

Maybe, it will depend on the situation on the ground. For instance, if Israel sends more aid by ground yet it is appropriated by Hamas it is unlikely the civilian population will benefit. If it's airdropped, I think it would likely work better (and would allow Israel to keep the border closed).

Also, the interim measures ordered are surprisingly... Well, kind of generic. I think everyone understands that, when civilians are involved, there should be an effort by belligerents to give them aid, or that incitement should be curbed, or that they should not destroy a population. Yet I would have expected the ICJ to order Israel to prepare for the return of the population of northern Gaza and Gaza City in particular. It would make sense for Israel to do it, both politically and militarily, and it is also the right thing to do.

At this point, if Israel simply eases up on its starvation campaign, the situation will improve.

You mean the genocide that isn't happening?

No, I mean the genocide that is happening.

[wat0n]

Firstly, there are a whole number of reasons why the court would not order a ceasefire at this time. The most plausible explanation, in my opinion, is the carrot and the stick. The carrot for Israel being that they can continue to fight Hamas provided that they use highly targeted strikes only. The stick being a ceasefire order if nothing changes.

If Israel complies with the court's demands at this juncture, it will make it much harder for them to renege on their obligations to the court if they are later found guilty.

Again, the ICJ doesn't have that much of a history of caring about those things. It did not use a carrot and stick approach when it ruled against the US in Nicaragua v United States (the Contra case, which led to the US to veto all UNSC resolutions aiming to enforce the ruling. Note how few remember that now).

Israel has an obvious interest in not being found guilty of genocide, although I do wonder if Netanyahu cares more about it or about remaining in power for a couple more months. As such, I could have imagined Israel budging to pressure to leave Gaza had the order been given - Biden would have had all leverage here, and given Netanyahu the choice between leaving and quitting.

In the hearing, there was a whole lot of argumentation from the Israeli side that their actions are justified because they are necessary for their self-defense, and that, therefore, SA has no standing. Since the court ruled otherwise, we can conclude that those arguments have been rejected.

Did you read the ruling? Israel did not challenge South Africa's standing.

III. STANDING OF SOUTH AFRICA

33. The Court notes that the Respondent did not challenge the standing of the Applicant in the present proceedings. It recalls that, in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) where Article IX of the Genocide Convention was also invoked, it observed that all the States parties to the Convention have a common interest to ensure the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide, by committing themselves to fulfilling the obligations contained in the Convention. Such a common interest implies that the obligations in question are owed by any State party to all the other States parties to the relevant convention; they are obligations erga omnes partes, in the sense that each
State party has an interest in compliance with them in any given case. The common interest in compliance with the relevant obligations under the Genocide Convention entails that any State party, without distinction, is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another State party for an alleged breach of its obligations erga omnes partes. Accordingly, the Court found that any State party to the Genocide Convention may invoke the responsibility of another State party, including through the institution of proceedings before the Court, with a view to determining the alleged failure to comply with its obligations erga omnes partes under the Convention and to bringing that failure to an end (Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2022 (II),
pp. 516-517, paras. 107-108 and 112).

34. The Court concludes, prima facie, that South Africa has standing to submit to it the dispute with Israel concerning alleged violations of obligations under the Genocide Convention.

It did not do so explicitly, however, it will be very difficult for Israel to allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza in any real sense if its off the charts bombing campaign continues.

Not necessarily. Israel can provide aid through airdrops.

If it saves Palestinian lives, it's a dub for SA. The reason why this is a PR disaster for Israel should be obvious.

This falls far below the standard SA set out to enforce. It also suggests the ICJ is skeptical about its claims.

If.

Indeed, if.

At this point, if Israel simply eases up on its starvation campaign, the situation will improve.

There is no "starvation campaign", and in any event Israel is opening its crossings to Gaza to allow aid.

I would also say that it is important, and kind of strange, that the ICJ did not order Israel to allow Palestinians to return. It would also make it easier for them to get aid, since it would not be appropriated by Hamas in any significant fashion.

No, I mean the genocide that is happening.

In your head.

[Deutschmania]

:lol:

I am simply showing how full of shit you are. And one of the peoples who were there before Rome had an empire have a name, Jews.

Genetically , the Palestinians have just as much of a link to the land as that of the present day Jews , for what it's worth. And are even related to the Hebrews . Yet even if they weren't , they still would have an established right to reside in the land in which they have a longstanding existence in . Otherwise , I as the descendant of Palantine Germans , from the Rhineland would not only have a right to return to the land , but also to ethnic cleanse any French who might resist the resettlement of my people in our historic homeland of Alsatia . Never mind the fact that the French are themselves a Germanic people . They choose to speak French , which is a Latin based language . Therefore , by your logic , they would be akin to Roman imperialists . And I , as an indigenous European would have every right to reclaim the homeland that is mine by birthright . Never mind the fact that I am myself only of partial German lineage , and am actually descended from almost all of the various peoples of Europe , in addition to even being of some Jewish ancestry . No , if the Jews have a right of return , in regards to international law , although they have not resided in the land for an even longer period of time than my forebears have not lived in the historic Palantinate , and many of them are not even of complete Israelite lineage , if any , especially if they are simply converts to Judaism , then by the same token , I would have a similar supposed right to retake possession of the entire Rhineland as my homeland . Blood and soil , and all that .

[wat0n]

Genetically , the Palestinians have just as much of a link to the land as that of the present day Jews , for what it's worth. And are even related to the Hebrews . Yet even if they weren't , they still would have an established right to reside in the land in which they have a longstanding existence in . Otherwise , I as the descendant of Palantine Germans , from the Rhineland would not only have a right to return to the land , but also to ethnic cleanse any French who might resist the resettlement of my people in our historic homeland of Alsatia . Never mind the fact that the French are themselves a Germanic people . They choose to speak French , which is a Latin based language . Therefore , by your logic , they would be akin to Roman imperialists . And I , as an indigenous European would have every right to reclaim the homeland that is mine by birthright . Never mind the fact that I am myself only of partial German lineage , and am actually descended from almost all of the various peoples of Europe , in addition to even being of some Jewish ancestry . No , if the Jews have a right of return , in regards to international law , although they have not resided in the land for an even longer period of time than my forebears have not lived in the historic Palantinate , and many of them are not even of complete Israelite lineage , if any , especially if they are simply converts to Judaism , then by the same token , I would have a similar supposed right to retake possession of the entire Rhineland as my homeland . Blood and soil , and all that .

Sure, that's one reason among many why the Palestinians should get their own state.

Israel already exists, it should by those same genealogical arguments, and it's not going away. It should not, anyway, given most Israelis were born there.

[QatzelOk]

It's hilarious to see that for the left, "integrity" means ignoring the evidence you don't like and making inane, irrelevant talking points.

You mean irrelevant talking points like "Pinochet was not a fascist" and "Israel is not committing genocide?" Inane, and insane, and .... talking points of rich chauvinistic pricks who fund media lies to "build their sociapathic dreamworlds" between trips on Jeffrey's airplane?

These aren't the lies of "the left," they're the lies of our false conscousness-producing media. The same media *pretends* to be left... but this is just a figleaf to cover its real biases which are not based on the left-right axis.

► Show Spoiler

I hope you are someone's puppet account, and that the reason you troll so hard... is to artificially seed discussions. If this is the case, you are doing a decent job. But if you are working for someone else with money for you, and you are just here to sell that sponsor's ideas, then your lack of interest in other points of view is really sad and self-destructive.

[wat0n]

You mean irrelevant talking points like "Pinochet was not a fascist" and "Israel is not committing genocide?" Inane, and insane, and .... talking points of rich chauvinistic pricks who fund media lies to "build their sociapathic dreamworlds" between trips on Jeffrey's airplane?

These aren't the lies of "the left," they're the lies of our false conscousness-producing media. The same media *pretends* to be left... but this is just a figleaf to cover its real biases which are not based on the left-right axis.

► Show Spoiler

I hope you are someone's puppet account, and that the reason you troll so hard... is to artificially seed discussions. If this is the case, you are doing a decent job. But if you are working for someone else with money for you, and you are just here to sell that sponsor's ideas, then your lack of interest in other points of view is really sad and self-destructive.

Inane points like calling other posters trolls as a way to whine because you lack the wits to provide a cogent counter-argument to the fact that the ICJ did not order Israel to stop military operations in Gaza, thereby disregarding South Africa's main measure and the whole point of wasting everyone's time with this suit.

I am having a blast pointing this inanity out though.

[late]

Inane points like calling other posters trolls as a way to whine because you lack the wits to provide a cogent counter-argument

People that are not paid don't usually parrot propaganda 100 times.

You know, like you do.

[wat0n]

People that are not paid don't usually parrot propaganda 100 times.

You know, like you do.

As I said, I'm having a blast with all the inanity

[late]

As I said, I'm having a blast with all the inanity

You see that a lot from Jr High school kids.

Most of us grow up.

[wat0n]

You see that a lot from Jr High school kids.

Most of us grow up.

Right.

For instance, most of us grow up and just accept that the ICJ didn't think there was a justification to force Israel to let Hamas off the hook. I wonder why.

[late]

For instance, most of us grow up and just accept that the ICJ didn't think there was a justification to force Israel to let Hamas off the hook. I wonder why.

Because it's a court, and courts run on facts presented.

You're basically declaring innocence before the trial even starts. You may not like how it finishes.

[wat0n]

Because it's a court, and courts run on facts presented.

You're basically declaring innocence before the trial even starts. You may not like how it finishes.

Sure.

I still wonder, though, if it's so evident why didn't the ICJ order Israel to leave Gaza?

[late]

I still wonder, though, if it's so evident why didn't the ICJ order Israel to leave Gaza?

Because that's not how courts work.

[wat0n]

Because that's not how courts work.

The ICJ could have ordered Israel to stop operating in Gaza, indeed it's the first thing South Africa requested, but it chose not to. It didn't even order Israel to work for the return of Gazans to the north in the earliest feasible date, even if it should have (as far as I'm concerned at least).

The ICJ is quite clear it can order pretty much anything it wants in this regard. It's also mentioned in the order.

[late]

The ICJ could have ordered Israel to stop operating in Gaza, indeed it's the first thing South Africa requested, but it chose not to. It didn't even order Israel to work for the return of Gazans to the north in the earliest feasible date, even if it should have (as far as I'm concerned at least).

The ICJ is quite clear it can order pretty much anything it wants in this regard. It's also mentioned in the order.

Sigh.

The time to pay close attention is when a court renders judgement.

Kinda think you won't like it, but we will see.

[wat0n]

Sigh.

The time to pay close attention is when a court renders judgement.

Kinda think you won't like it, but we will see.

Let's wait and see.

For all we know, this will take many years and neither of the relevant parties (the Netanyahu government, the ANC government and Hamas) will be around.